1. The defendant

(a) collect the trees listed in attached Form 2 on each land listed in attached Form 1 and the same.

Facts of recognition

On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with a deposit of KRW 10 million, annual rent of KRW 4.5 million, and three years (from May 17, 2012 to May 16, 2015) for the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.

On May 18, 2012, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a deposit of KRW 10 million and a rent of KRW 4.5 million, and acquired the instant land and planted trees therein.

The Defendant paid KRW 4.5 million to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2013 and June 5, 2014, respectively.

As of August 10, 2018, the instant land is planted each item listed in attached Table 2 owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “each item of this case”).

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, the result of appraiser C’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings.

Judgment

The Defendant renewed the lease contract of this case, even after May 16, 2015 when the lease term of this case expires, used the above land continuously without collecting his trees planted on the above land, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the above continuous use by the Defendant. Since there is no dispute between the parties or is recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, the lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed under the same condition pursuant to Article 639(1) of the Civil Act.

As above, since May 16, 2015, when the lease of the instant land was renewed, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not pay the rent. As such, around March 30, 2018, the Defendant’s delayed rent exceeded the amount of two-term rents.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant contract pursuant to Article 640 of the Civil Act, and the instant contract was terminated on April 9, 2018, when the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination, was served on the Defendant.

The defendant's obligation to return the overdue rent and the leased object shall be the lease price of the land in this case.