건물철거및토지인도청구
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) removes the buildings listed in the attached Table No. 2 from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
In full view of the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 8, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1 to No. 10-2, and evidence No. 1 to No. 10-2, and witness E’s testimony, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who jointly own the land specified in the attached Table No. 1 in the attached Table No. 1, on March 8, 2011, and the operator of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant hereinafter “Defendant”) were transferred to the Defendant for the period from April 1, 201 to March 31, 2013, and the Defendant agreed to “the period from March 31, 2011 to allow the Defendant to use and benefit from the land without compensation,” and the Defendant, the beneficiary, agreed to return the land to the Plaintiffs upon termination of the above period, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, may accept it.
According to Article 618 of the Civil Act, the term "payment of rent" is a requirement, and thus, the substance of the above agreement cannot be deemed as a lease.
It is reasonable to view that a loan is a loan for use.
Although there is a protocol and a land lease contract with the phrase "lease", it is right to see that the phrase widely used is merely the phrase "lease" as it is.
According to the evidence No. 3-12, 13, and 14, each of the above statements stated the Defendant’s internal minutes of 2013 with a plan to compile a budget of KRW 1.5 million per month from April 2013. However, this is nothing more than the plan that was made within the Defendant after the fact that there was no rent agreement with regard to the contract of 2011 and there was no rent agreement with regard to the contract of 201, and it was actually paid or received so far, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed differently.
According to the above facts, the loan for use was terminated upon the expiration of the contract period. The defendant is obligated to restore the building constructed on the ground to its original state by removing the building owned by the defendant to the land owner and the lender, and to deliver the above land.
On this basis, the defendant has the right to demand the purchase of the building by the lessee.