B. The purport of the agreement to newly construct a store building and a water capacity room on the land of the State and to simultaneously receive the loan and return the leased property to its original state upon the expiration of the lending period.

C. Whether there is a justifiable reason to continue to use the above site after the expiry of the loan period for State property if a person acquired a statutory superficies under customary law on the State-owned site for the purpose of owning a water testing hall building (affirmative)

B. In the event that a new construction of a store building and a water capacity is made on a state-owned land and a new construction of a store and a loan is made and the loan is made at the same time, the purport is that if the facility was installed at will in the object of the loan at the time of the expiration of the loan period, the said purpose is to remove the building and the building and the water capacity of the said land should be returned to the public place, and it cannot be interpreted that the said land should be returned to the public place by removing the building and the water capacity building, which are the object of the loan, if the loan period expires.

C. In a case where statutory superficies is acquired for the ownership of a water-bearing building in part of the site, there is a justifiable reason to continue to use the said site even after the lease period expires thereafter.

1. The facts charged of this case are as follows: "The defendant did not use the above state-owned land at 1368 m2, 437 m2, 21 m2, 37 m2, 437 m2, 1990 on June 30, 190, and the above state-owned property was not returned to its original state-owned land from July 1, 1990 to November 1, 199, and the above state-owned property was used without any justifiable reasons." The defendant's assertion that "(1) the above state-owned land was not used without any justifiable reason, but the above state-owned land was used at the customary legal superficies, and even if there was a restoration agreement on the above state-owned land, the above land-owned land or the above land-owned land was purchased at 170 m2, 368 m2, 1987 m2, 197 m2, 367, 1985.

2. Therefore, we examine whether the defendant agreed to remove the above water capacity as recognized by the court below when concluding a loan agreement on state property on June 1985.

(4) On October 18, 1984, the defendant newly constructed the above 1367 site per 1367 site per 1368 site per 1368 site per 1368 site per 4, the same 1367 forest land under the above 1367 site and constructed the 158.4 square meters per 158.4 square meters per 1567 site per 1367 site for the above 1367 site with the consent of the authorities (the above 1367 site loan agreement) by using the above 196th 4 square meters per 157 site for the above 1367 site. The above 196th 198 building site was adjoining the above 1368 building site and the 196th 198th 162 building site for the above 15th 198 building site.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant newly constructed a water tank in this case for the purpose of preserving a living line for the purpose of common use of the above store building, which is almost attached to the building of the above store to be used as a house. Thus, it is unreasonable to interpret the above building as an accessory to the above building. If the defendant newly constructed a building of the above store and became owned by the defendant, and the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Republic of Korea was completed on the basis of the above donation, and the purport of Article 11 of the State property loan contract prepared on June 1985 is interpreted in mind. If the purport is stated in the court below as above, the defendant would remove the above water pipe building, which is the object of the loan, and if the loan expires, only three parcels of the above land (if the above building is interpreted, it should be removed, the above building should be removed, because the above building should be removed without permission, and if the defendant arbitrarily removed the above building and the above building are sufficient to the purport that the above building and the above building should be removed, the above building and the object of the above loan period can not be returned.

C. Thus, insofar as the above building and the site were owned by the Republic of Korea, and the ownership of the building was transferred to the defendant, and there was no agreement to remove the above building, the defendant is interpreted to have acquired customary statutory superficies on the 29m29m2 of the above 1368m2 of the land, which is the site, for the ownership of the above 1368m2, and the defendant may be deemed to have justifiable grounds for continuing the use of the above site even after the expiration of the loan period of this case.

D. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion on the above grounds is erroneous in finding the facts contrary to the intentions and interests of the parties indicated in the above loan agreement, and in misunderstanding the legal principles as to accessory objects and statutory superficies under customary law, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.