Article 628 of the Civil Act and Article 628 of the Civil Act shall apply to the claim for compensation for any illegal possession due to termination of the lease

Even if a lessor claims for rent equivalent to ten times the previous rent when he/she claims for damages for illegal possession after the termination of the lease, the lessee’s assertion that the said claim is unfair in light of Article 628 of the Civil Act is groundless, since the lessor’s claim is not a claim for the increased amount of rent under a lease agreement under Article 628 of the Civil Act, but a claim for damages for illegal possession of the lessee.

Articles 628 and 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Kim Tae-dae and 19 others

Jeonju District Court (82 Gohap465)

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

1. The Plaintiff:

A. From January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, Defendant Kim Jong-dae paid an amount of 435,600 won with the rate of 5 percent per annum from January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, and paid an amount of 45,375 won per month from the rate of 2,35,375 won per annum from January 1, 1982 to the date of the attached Table 1 (b), among the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (b), which is subject to the indication of the attached drawing, 8, 98, 98, 91, 60, 59, 59, 58, 57, 56, and 2.

B. From January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, Defendant Thai line shall pay an amount of 255,600 won with an annual rate of 5% from January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, and from January 1, 1982, the amount of money calculated by the rate of 26,625 won per month at the rate of 64, 71, 92, 91, 60, 61, 63, and 64 of the above drawings indication among the real estate in the above list 1 (b) from January 1, 1982 to the above list shall be paid in proportion to the above drawings indication.

C. From January 1, 1982 to the date of full payment, Defendant Park Jong-ho paid an amount of 451,800 won with an annual rate of 5% from January 1, 1982 to the date of full payment, and the amount of 47,062 won per month from January 1, 1982 to the date of delivery of 251 square meters from the date of the indication of the above drawings among the real estate in the above list 1 (b).

D. Defendant Kim Jong- Point, and Defendant Heung-do shall pay an amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum from January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, respectively, of 45,514 won and the amount equivalent to 51,113, 112, 21, 22, 23, 24, 118, 50, and 51 won, respectively, and the amount equivalent to 51, 113, 112, 21, 22, 23, 24, 118, 50, and 51 in sequence, which are linked to each of the items of (E) parts of the above drawings among the real estate listed in the first list (b) above, and the amount equivalent to 177,00 won per annum, Defendant Kim Jong-soo and 7,111,14, and Defendant Heung-do shall be paid each month until he delivers the amount of 177,000 square meters.

E. From January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, Defendant Cick Line shall pay an amount of 23,400 won with an annual rate of 5 percent, and from January 1, 1982 to the date of full payment, Defendant Cick Line shall pay an amount of 24,00 won per month at the rate of 118, 24, 25, 26, 27, 126, 119, and 118 of the above drawings indications among the real estate stated in paragraph (b) above from January 1, 1982 to the date of delivery of 128 square meters.

F. From January 1, 1982 to the full payment system, the amount of 5 percent per annum shall be paid from January 1, 1982 to January 129, 128, 127, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 130, 129, and 129 won, respectively, and from January 1, 1982 to the date of full payment. From January 1, 1982 to January 1, 1982, the amount equivalent to 129, 128, 127, 28, 29, 30, 31, 132, 130, and 129 won per annum, and the amount shall be calculated from January 1, 1982 to March 129, 201, 601, 40, 700, 17, 129.

G. From January 1, 1982 to the date of full payment, the defendant Socopy shall pay an amount of 513,000 won with an annual rate of 5%, and from January 1, 1982 to the date of full payment, the amount of money calculated by the rate of 40, 130, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 shall be paid each month at the rate of 53,437 won from among the real estate stated in the above list 1 (b) from January 1, 1982 to the date of delivery of the part of 285 square meters in the ship connecting each point.

2. The court costs are assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution

The part against the defendants in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 (No. 1-7 copy of each register of the court below), since Jeonju-si 1 was the above 442 square meters (number 1 omitted), 79 square meters (number 3 omitted), 412 square meters before (number 4 omitted), 60 square meters (number 5 omitted), 75 square meters (number 5 omitted) and 7 square meters, the ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case in the name of the plaintiff was made in seven pieces such as the cemetery 989 square meters (number 5 omitted). On the other hand, it is recognized that the above real estate of this case was made in the name of the court below, as the result of the examination by the appraiser Park Jong-dong, the field inspection by the court below, and the records of Kim Jong-jin's death, 80 Ka-jin, 415 (No. 82-76 (No. 9 of the court below's judgment of the court below) and the records of the above Kim Jong-Ba-dong'sk Kim.

The defendants asserted that the lease contract was concluded with the plaintiff as to each possession portion and it has been lawfully occupied until now. The plaintiff's possession was terminated on June 19, 1980 by the plaintiff's exercise of the right to terminate the lease contract with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants' possession was alleged to be illegal possession from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1980. Thus, the defendants except the above deceased and their property successors were notified of the whole purport of the pleading in light of the record verification of the above court's above court's records, since the plaintiff's prior lease contract was concluded with the plaintiff's prior tenant or the plaintiff's life, again, on January 1, 1980, the lease contract was concluded with the plaintiff on June 19, 198, and at least 10 months after the expiration of the lease contract was concluded with the plaintiff's prior notice as 19 months after the expiration of the lease contract, and it cannot be acknowledged that the remaining property was not received from the plaintiff's expiration of the lease contract.

However, since the above lease contract was concluded in a uniform manner with several lessees in advance, the above provision on reservation of the Plaintiff's right to cancel the lease contract and the lease term of one year is merely an example, and thus invalid, it can be viewed that the above lease contract was concluded in 190 years with the following facts: (a) as a whole, in full view of the contents of Eul's 8-1 through 3 (each lease contract without dispute over its establishment; and (b) the purport of the pleading in part of the record verification result of the court of original judgment, the right to terminate the lease contract was reserved and the lease term was one year; (c) the above provision on the lease contract was concluded in 19 years with the above contents and form as stated in the above 19-year lease contract; and (d) the Defendants did not claim that the above provision on the short-term lease contract was concluded in 190 years with the intent to renew the lease contract as stated in the above 198-year lease contract. Thus, the Defendants did not claim that the above provision on the lease contract was concluded in 197 years.

Therefore, the defendants have no assertion and proof that the above land portion is legitimate right, and therefore, the above lease contract was terminated from January 1, 1981 to the delivery of the portion of the land. Thus, in full view of the results of the appraisal by the appraiser Kim Young-chul and the results of the appraisal by the appraiser of the court below, the facts can be acknowledged such as the rent in 1981 and the rent in January 1, 1982 after January 1, 1982 as stated in the annexed Table 1 (c) and (d). Each testimony by the court below witness Kim Jong-dae-dae, the court below's witness Lee Jong-dae, and the witness Lee Jong-chul's testimony against the above recognition, cannot be trusted, and there is no counter-proof (However, since the plaintiff's occupation area of the defendant Kim Jong-chul was 285 square meters, the 1981's rent in 1981 is equivalent to 513,000 won and the amount of rent in 1981.34.0

On the other hand, the above Go Dong-dong and Dong Kim Jong-jin died on July 29, 1981 and April 27, 1982, and thereafter, the above Defendants, who are the property successors, have occupied their respective corresponding parts and profited from the joint use. Accordingly, this obligation of the above deceased, out of the compensation for damages due to the above recognition rent, shall be inherited to the above Defendants, who are the property successors, in accordance with the amount of paragraphs (c) through (d) of Article 2 in accordance with the share ratio of inheritance in the attached Table 2, and the full amount of the rent per joint illegal possessor shall be paid jointly to the plaintiff after the death, or after the above death, the defendants, who are the property successors, shall be entitled to receive the same amount as the entry in paragraphs (c) through (d) of Article 2, as the joint illegal possessor in accordance with each inheritance share ratio.

However, the defendants' claim for rent of 10 times the past ten times the rent agreed with the plaintiff in 1980 from the year 1981 is unreasonable in light of Article 628 of the Civil Code, or the plaintiff's claim for this case is not a claim for increasing the rent under the lease agreement, but a claim for the amount of damages on the ground of the defendants' illegal possession. Thus, the above claim by the defendants is without merit.

Therefore, the remaining defendants except the above deceased's property successors shall pay to the plaintiff the amount listed in the attached Table 1 (c) and damages for delay under the civil law with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, and from January 1, 1982 to the time of delivery of the part of possession of the real estate in this case, the above plaintiffs' property successors shall pay the amount of money listed in the attached Table 2 (c) and damages for delay with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 1982 to the full payment date, and from January 1, 1982 to the time of delivery of the part of possession of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and from January 1, 1982 to the time of delivery of the part of possession of the above real estate in this case, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants shall be dismissed as the remaining defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.

[Attachment List]

Judges' interference with deliberation (Presiding Judge)