beta
Text
1. The claim of this case filed by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the appointed party) and the appointed party are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. On February 2014, Plaintiff A and the Defendant, who is the white father of the Plaintiffs, entered into a contract to lease the first or third real estate of this case owned by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the above lease contract”) with the Defendant instead of paying taxes imposed on the first or third real estate of this case without setting the lease period.
In addition, in February 2014, Plaintiff A entered into an oral contract with Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff C, setting forth KRW 400,000 per month without setting the lease term as KRW 400,00 on behalf of Plaintiff C, which is the Plaintiff C owner, to lease the instant 4 and 5 real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”).
At the time of the first and second lease contract of this case, the Defendant, without any condition, decided to deliver each of the real estate of this case to the Plaintiffs at the time of receiving a request from the Plaintiffs for delivery of each of the real estate of this case. However, each of the real estate of this case is in violation of the purpose or purpose stipulated in the first and second lease contract of this case (i.e., agricultural machinery, agricultural products management, and rice farming).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the intent to terminate the instant First and Second Lease Contracts by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant, and the instant first and second lease contracts without any agreement on the period were terminated on September 5, 2017, when six months have elapsed from March 6, 2017, on which the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant pursuant to Article 635(2) of the Civil Act.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the first through third real estate of this case to the plaintiff A, and the fourth and fifth real estate of this case to the plaintiff C respectively.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion of judgment is premised on the fact that the term of lease was not fixed at the time of entering into the first and second lease contract of this case. The plaintiffs' statement and image of evidence Nos. 1 and 6 alone are in the case of this case.