(b) Where a contract is made to donate a temporary building on the leased land to a lessor upon termination of the lease, or a lessee's right to claim reimbursement for beneficial costs;

B. In concluding a land lease contract, if it is acknowledged that the lessee has agreed to install and construct the temporary building, etc. on the land at the lessee’s expense and to operate the permanent house, but to donate the surrounding facility and the temporary building to the lessor when the lease is terminated, it shall be deemed that the lessee is not entitled to claim for reimbursement of the beneficial cost.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

With respect to No. 1:

As for a claim for the surrender of a building on the ground of an illegal possession, it is like a theory of lawsuit against the person who actually occupies the building. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant ordered the plaintiff to donate the surrounding facilities and the building attached thereto to the leased land at the expense of the defendant, constructed and operate the refining house, but upon the termination of the lease, the court below confirmed the fact that the defendant agreed to donate the building to the plaintiff, and accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking the order of the provisional building, etc. under the above contract on the ground of the termination of the lease. Therefore, in this case, since the judgment of the court below is different from the case of the lawsuit, the judgment below ordered the name of the part of the building which the defendant occupied indirectly. The argument is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the records, the part of the theory of lawsuit that the Defendant leased to the Nonparty and directly possessed by the said Nonparty is located in the state-owned land, and the Plaintiff did not seek an explanation from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the lower court did not specify the judgment as to the assertion of lawsuit regarding the above part of the building and did not err in the omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, on the ground that it did not err.

With respect to the third point:

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim is against the public order and good faith or the principle of good faith is acceptable, and even if the above argument contains the same contents as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be said that the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles or by omitting judgment, as long as the court below decided that there is no claim for damages. The argument

With respect to the fourth point:

According to the records, the plaintiff and the defendant consented to planting trees within 500 weeks on the leased land of this case according to the national forest afforestation policy, and accordingly, the court below's disposition that recognized the fact that the defendant planted 408 forest trees on the leased land of this case and recognized the fact that there was a mistake of mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and in light of the facts recognized and the contents of the lease agreement of this case duly confirmed by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the lease contract of this case cannot be deemed to be a land lease for the purpose of building, other structure, or planting, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles of Article 643 of the Civil Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

With respect to the fifth point:

According to the records, in the conclusion of the land lease contract of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant are justified in the judgment below's finding that the defendant constructed the land of this case at the expense of the defendant, constructed the building and operated the refining house at the expense of the defendant, but if the lease is terminated, the defendant agreed to donate the surrounding facilities and the building to the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, and if so, it shall not be deemed that the defendant agreed to the effect that the defendant cannot make a claim for reimbursement of beneficial expenses. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts and violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error

With respect to the sixth Ground:

In light of the records, the court below's finding and finding that the plaintiff suffered damages of 24,00,000 won due to the plaintiff's failure to deliver 449 square meters of the land that the plaintiff leased to the defendant for the lease and caused damages to the defendant, and that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim until he compensates for the amount of damages, and the plaintiff's claim for damages equivalent to the plaintiff's fee set-off on an equal amount of damages, is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the reasons, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit, since it is returned to the ground for

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the closed party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)