1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 1, on January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 19, 2010 on the annual rent of KRW 1,800,000 (in advance on December 10 of each year), and the lease period of January 19, 2010 to January 18, 2015 (hereinafter “the first lease agreement of this case”), and the fact that the land of this case was delivered to the Defendant.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the annual rent under the instant first lease agreement, and the Plaintiff received the annual rent from the Defendant during the period from January 19, 2010 to January 18, 2014.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed rent of KRW 1,800,000 for the period from January 19, 2014 to January 18, 2015, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 19, 2014 to April 25, 2014, the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the first lease contract of this case was already terminated before December 10, 2013, and thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the Plaintiff the rent under the first lease contract of this case.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant secondary lease agreement”) with D on December 31, 2012 does not conflict between the parties.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into the first lease contract of this case and transferred the land of this case to the Defendant and let the Defendant use it. As such, the Plaintiff is a lessor under the first lease contract of this case.