beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
1 The attached appraisal sheet 3,020 square meters shall also be indicated on the land of Daejeon Seo-gu C.
Reasons
1. Request for principal action ( removal and request for extradition);
A. 1) Determination as to the cause of the claim is based on the following facts: (a) 1 and 2 lease agreements (i) 3,020 square meters in Seosung-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”) are owned by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff leased the above land to the defendant, and in this process, the lease contract was prepared as shown below [Attachment 1-1].
(C) On March 28, 2005, on March 31, 2005 through March 30 (5) of 2009, on March 31, 2005, the 13-Gaina, the 8-Gain, the 13-Gain, the 13-Gain, and the 8-2-Gain, the 13-Gain, the 13-day period from March 30, 2010, each year, from March 30, 209 to March 30, 2014, the 1-1: the 1-1: the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant] (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared the 1-2 lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the lessee prepared a written agreement that the 6-year lessee is liable for the removal of any ground object. If the lessee fails to remove it on the ground, the 6-year lessee is liable for any criminal charge.”
(3) On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant recognized the fact that there was a clerical error in writing at the time of preparing the second lease agreement, and prepared a written correction of the lease term of the first lease agreement from “from March 31, 2005 to March 30, 2009” to “from March 31, 2005 to March 30, 2010”, and the lease term of the second lease agreement from “from March 30, 2009 to March 30, 2014” to “from March 30, 2010 to March 30, 2015.”
Since the period of No. 2 and No. 1 lease was five years, but the termination date of lease commenced on March 31, 2005 was entered on March 30, 2009, which was four years later, it was revised on March 30, 2010, and accordingly, the period of the second lease was revised on March 30, 2010.
Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that "the defendant read the above documents, but signed and sealed them without understanding the contents thereof," and the plaintiff is the crime of forging the private documents and uttering of the falsified private documents.