logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.08 2017가단531570
토지인도
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 24, 2010, F installed and used each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On May 24, 2010, F sold the instant real estate to the Defendants at KRW 73 million, such as the said vinyl, and designated and leased the instant real estate as the annual rent of KRW 2 million from July 30, 2010 to July 29, 2015 (hereinafter “the Defendant’s share of KRW 1/2”), and the Defendants cultivated flowers crops from the instant real estate.

B. The F died on August 15, 2016 (hereinafter “F”) and succeeded to the property of the Plaintiff A, his wife, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, who were their children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiffs informed the Defendants of the intention to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement several times from April 2014 to the expiration of the instant lease agreement, and the Deceased died during the agreement on the purchase price in accordance with the Defendants’ claim for the purchase of ground property. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs notified the termination of the instant lease agreement from January 2017. Since the instant lease agreement was terminated, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment from the date of delivery.

As to this, the Defendants agreed not only to maintain the lease agreement until the Deceased’s expropriation of the instant real property and the ground property due to development activities, but also not to do so.

Even if the lease contract of this case is implicitly renewed, and the contract term is the same five years as the previous contract term under Article 25 of the Farmland Act, so it is proved that the lease term has not yet expired.

(b) judgment;

arrow