beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From May 2007, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant land to C, who was the husband of the Plaintiff, and died while running a water business on the secondhand part; and (b) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on April 8, 2013, which leases KRW 300,000 and KRW 300,000 per month on the instant land (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the effect that “if the original state is known upon the termination of the contract, the Defendant shall pay twice the monthly rent from the day following the termination of the lease to the day of completion of the original state, and if any environmental pollution occurs, the Defendant shall pay the deposit amount and KRW 5,00,000 as penalty (hereinafter “instant
C. The instant lease agreement was terminated on November 2013 on the grounds of two or more rents, on the grounds of the following two or more rents.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for delay equivalent to twice the monthly rent from November 12, 2013, the following day after the termination of the lease agreement, by asserting that “the Defendant did not restore the land to its original state without reclaiming or neglecting waste and waste on the ground and underground, even after the termination of the lease agreement.”
On December 9, 2015, the Ulsan District Court rendered a ruling that "The defendant has restored the land of this case to its original state on December 8, 2014, the amount of KRW 7,740,000 (=60,000 x (27/30 days in December) which was reduced by 40% and 4,644,00 won shall be quoted (Ulsan District Court 2014Da18406), which was finalized on December 29, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "relevant civil judgment")."
E) The Plaintiff treated wastes twice on January 13, 2016 and January 18, 2016, after additional discovery of the wastes buried on the ground of the instant land. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (Additional Number) of the Plaintiff.