계고처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
The reason why our court should explain this case is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, if it deducts the addition of the contents stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article, thereby citing this in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In addition, even if the lease contract of this case terminated due to the expiration of the period, the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim the purchase of ground against the facilities such as a ticket office and a portable toilet installed on the land of this case (hereinafter "facilities of this case") pursuant to Articles 643 and 283 of the Civil Act, and therefore, there is no obligation to remove the facilities of this case in itself, and thus, the defendant's disposition of vicarious execution premised on the plaintiff's duty to remove the facilities of this case is unlawful.
Judgment
Article 643 of the Civil Act provides that Article 283 of the Civil Act concerning the right to demand the purchase of ground shall apply mutatis mutandis to land lease for the purpose of owning or planting, collecting salt, or cutting down a building or any other structure. Since this provision is a mandatory provision, it is an agreement in violation of this provision, which is not effective against the lessee or the lessee, but is not disadvantageous to the lessee. However, if special circumstances that cannot be deemed disadvantageous to the lessee, etc. can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the process of concluding the contract and
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da1231 Decided May 26, 201). In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 7 and 12, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff renounced the right to purchase ground property by the agreement to restore the land of this case to its original state without delay upon the termination of the lease contract. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s refusal of the right to purchase ground property may be recognized. In addition, when the lease contract for public property is terminated, the contract may be terminated at any time when necessary by the administrative agency.