beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff is the owner of a plastic house (hereinafter “the instant plastic house”) indicated in the purport of the claim, and the fact that the Defendant occupied it is not a dispute between the parties. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant plastic house to the Plaintiff.
(2) The Defendant’s defense is asserting that the Defendant could not comply with the request for extradition since he/she had a legitimate title to possess the instant vinyl as a lessee for the instant vinyl. Thus, according to the records on the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff did not have any deposit money for the instant vinyl to the Defendant on August 3, 2014, and the lease term shall be between five years and five years from August 3, 2014, and the following contract shall be entered into with each other. The rent shall be KRW 3 million a year from August 3, 2014 to August 2, 2015, and five million a year from August 3, 2015, and the illegal act in the park area shall be determined by the lessee as the lessee (hereinafter “the instant lease”). Thus, the Defendant, as a lessee of the instant vinyl, has legitimate title to the instant vinyl, and therefore, has justifiable grounds for defense.
As to this, the Plaintiff re-claimed that the instant lease agreement was terminated, the Plaintiff sent a notice of termination to the Defendant on May 8, 2015, on the ground that “The land of a vinyl house is in conflict with the law, while it was emphasized that it would go against the source of plants or agricultural areas other than a plastic house as a park area, it would be in conflict with the law. However, there was a civil petition, such as the dispute with the residents of the first mountain cemetery without the main day, and then, the intervention with the Seo-gu Office.” On May 20, 2015, the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Office issued a notice of termination to the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015, on the ground that the instant plastic house office, the greenhouse, the greenhouse, and the dog-use was an unlawful act, and thus, the office in the vinyl