beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party indicated on the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 17, 12, among the land size of 8,109 square meters in Jinju-si, Jinju-si to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 417 square meters prior to D, Jinju-si (hereinafter “the instant land”) and 8,109 square meters prior to C (hereinafter “the instant land”) and E forest land 15,084 square meters (hereinafter “third land”).
B. From 1988 with respect to the above land, the Plaintiff leased the above land to the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants”) from the several years thereafter, without setting a deadline. On November 11, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on the above land 1, 250,000 won per annum and 36 months with respect to the above land, and then renewed the lease agreement by increasing the rent to 4,50,000 won per annum.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.
The defendants are living in the land No. 1 of this case. The above housing is affected by the land No. 2 of this case owned by the plaintiff, which is adjacent to the land No. 1 of this case, and the appraisal in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 17, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16, and 2, 3, 4, and 4, which are attached to the land No. 1 of this case.
9. A housing building exists on the ground of 78 square meters which connects each point of 10, 11, 12, 17, and 2 in sequence, and each of the items of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 4 on the ground of 13 square meters in sequence connected each point of 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 18 on the ship, each of which is 35 square meters on the ground of 35 square meters in order to connect each point of 10, 11, 12, 17, and 2.
The Defendants paid only the annual rent to the Plaintiff by November 1, 2014, and did not pay the rent to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants that the instant lease contract is terminated on the ground that the service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case constitutes termination of the lease agreement without setting a grace period or setting a deadline. The duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendants on April 5, 2017.
E. On the other hand, the designated parties.