1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “The part of the claim for unjust enrichment exceeding the Plaintiff’s share does not have merit,” which is “The part of the claim for unjust enrichment exceeding the Plaintiff’s share does not have merit.” Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. 변론재개신청에 대한 판단 피고는, 피고가 원고의 조부(祖父)인 F 또는 그 상속인인 원고의 부친(父親) D으로부터 이 사건 토지를 임차하였으므로 이 사건 토지를 점유할 정당한 권원이 있음을 입증하거나, 더 나아가 건물 소유를 목적으로 한 토지임대차에 있어서 임차인의 지상물매수청구권을 주장ㆍ입증하기 위하여 변론의 재개를 원하고 있는 것으로 보인다.

However, in the case of land lease the object of which is the ownership of a building, if the annual rent of the lessee reaches the rent of two years, the lessor may terminate the contract (Article 641 and Article 640 of the Civil Act). In such a case, if the contract is terminated due to the lessee’s default, the lessee may not exercise the right to demand the purchase of the land against the lessor (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7685, Apr. 22, 2003). Even if the Defendant proves that the land was occupied by the owner of the land under the lease contract with F or D, in this case where the Defendant sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land from July 1, 2006 to the date of closing the argument and evidence as to the payment of the rent to the Defendant by the date of closing the argument and evidence as to the removal of the land from the date of the next hearing to the date of the date of closing the argument, and rather, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff at least as to the land of this case.