1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the land of the Newannam-gun in the early 1999, and installed salt farm facilities by investing approximately KRW 57,000,000 in each of the above land from the owners of adjacent D salt farms and E salt farms, with their permission for land use respectively, until May 1999.

Since then, around 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease salt farm facilities established on each of the above lands to the Defendant by determining that salt 30 kgs are to receive 2,000 gs per year from the Defendant on the pretext of rent.

However, since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a rent under the above lease agreement by 2007 and did not pay the following rent to the Plaintiff by 2007, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 45,000,000 won for the value of the rent from 2013 to 2015, which is the value of 9,000 g (1 20 g) for the rent, among the rent stipulated in the above lease agreement.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of salt farm facilities established by the Plaintiff with the Defendant at the expense (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) does not conflict between the parties.

Meanwhile, the lessor is obligated to deliver the object to the lessee and to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making during the lease period (see Article 623 of the Civil Act), and when adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it can be known that the salt farm facilities installed by the Plaintiff, which are not the Plaintiff, are located on the land owned by another person, other than the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to obtain the consent of the owner of the land where the salt farm facilities are located to the Defendant in order to maintain the conditions necessary for the Defendant to use and profit from

However, in light of the above evidence, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient.