2016 Ghana1789 Land Delivery, etc.

Class A:

B

August 9, 2016

September 6, 2016

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff shall deliver 149,304 meters of the land for the stock farm in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and the amount calculated by applying the ratio of KRW 1.6 million to KRW 1.6 million and KRW 2.4 million per annum from March 2, 2016 to the date of delivery of the said land.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The main text No. 1-A and the defendant pay to the plaintiff money calculated by the ratio of KRW 1.6 million and KRW 2.4 million per annum from March 3, 2015 to the delivery date of the above land.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 30, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the land indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Defendant as the rent of KRW 10 million (in the case of a contract with a down payment of KRW 2 million, the remaining amount of KRW 8 million is equal to the annual payment of KRW 2 million) (on January 10, 2007), and the period from January 30, 2006 to December 30, 201, and on the same day, delivered the instant land to the Defendant on the same day.

B. After March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “lease agreement”) with the purport that the lease fee is KRW 2.4 million per annum (pre-payment on March 2, 201) and the period until March 2, 2015, and that the lessor may immediately terminate the lease agreement if the lessee fails to pay the rent more than twice consecutively (hereinafter referred to as “the lease agreement in this case”). However, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no agreement to increase the rent from this point to KRW 2.4 million is rejected). However, on March 2, 2011, the Defendant paid the rent of KRW 2.4 million from March 2, 2012 to March 1, 2016 (i.e., payment of the rent in advance, x March 2, 2015 to March 1, 2016).

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the Defendant continued to pay the rent more than twice (including not only the lease of this case terminated on March 2, 2015) and notified the Defendant that the lease of this case terminated on or around February 2016, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and to pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the rate of KRW 1.6 million per annum from March 2, 2016 to March 1, 2016 and from March 2, 2016 to the delivery date of the said land.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The assertion

(1) Claim for reduction of the fee

The Defendant expressed the Defendant’s difficult circumstances, thereby reducing the rent from KRW 2.4 million per annum to KRW 2.4 million. Even if the Plaintiff did not reduce the rent, the Defendant’s failure to claim the balance to the Defendant even after having received only KRW 2 million per year between four years, is implicitly recognized as KRW 2 million per annum.

(2) At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from D on February 15, 2006, 6.5 million won, since the Defendant purchased the instant building from D on February 15, 2006, after the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff should comply with the Defendant’s request for the purchase of the instant building.

B. Determination

(1) Part on the assertion for reduction of the fee

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to reduce the rent of KRW 2.4 million per annum from the annual amount of KRW 2.4 million. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff received the rent of KRW 2 million per year between four years, the mere fact that the Plaintiff did not demand the balance to the Defendant cannot be deemed to have implicitly recognized the rent of KRW 2 million per annum.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

(2) With respect to land lease for the purpose of owning structures on the part of a claim for purchase of ground water, where the contract is terminated due to the lessee’s nonperformance of obligation, the lessee does not have the right to demand purchase against the lessor pursuant to Articles 283 and 643 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7685, Apr. 22, 2003).

However, the Defendant’s refusal to pay a total of KRW 1.6 million from March 2, 2012 to March 1, 2016, and the termination of the instant lease agreement is as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected without further examining the remainder.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

Justices Cho Jong-chul