1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

On November 6, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with the lease term as KRW 48 million from November 9, 2012 to November 9, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 48 million and the rent of KRW 4.8 million per month (excluding value-added tax) by leasing a parcel of land, other than C, and its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant factory”) owned by the Plaintiff, to the Defendant, with the lease term from November 9, 2012 to November 6, 2014.

The defendant continued to use the factory of this case even after the agreed contract term expires, and the plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.

On January 24, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement by means of Kakao Stockholm message by moving the factory to another place, and suspended the payment of rent, however, the Defendant continued to use the instant factory even after the factory was not relocated.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff deducted the rent from the lease deposit for ten months from February 2, 2015 to November 2015, and when the lease deposit has been fully settled, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the rent to the Defendant. The Defendant also did not object thereto, and paid the rent again on December 14, 2016.

On May 30, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a Kakao Stockholm message stating that “the factory to be newly transferred will become the 12th day of the following month,” and then transferred the instant factory to another place on June 28, 2016.

On October 8, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant factory to a new lessee.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the above-mentioned facts of absence of dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1-1, and one-2, and the ground for appeal as to the claim for rent unpaid to the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease contract of this case continues to be used by the defendant even after the original contract term expires, and the plaintiff did not raise any objection, and Article 639(1) of the Civil Act is applicable.