The defendant from August 1, 2020 to the date of completion of delivery of 273,080 m224 m2.3 m24 m2.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 1999, the Defendant owned the instant land under the name of the Plaintiff, which was awarded a successful bid in the compulsory auction procedure and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned cement block structure and cement block structure and cement 36.36 square meters of the roof single-story housing (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The defendant is residing in the building of this case from July 19, 1971 to the closing date of the pleadings of this case.

From 199, the Defendant paid KRW 400,000 per annum to the Plaintiff in return for the use of the instant land.

On March 16, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the price of the instant land into KRW 500,000 per annum.

The Defendant paid KRW 500,000 each year to the Plaintiff from 2006 to 2018 pursuant to the above agreement.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 12, 1999, the Defendant, which is the primary cause of the claim, acquired a commercial zone with respect to the land of this case, but renounced it, and concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the land of this case with the Plaintiff around around 1999 and paid the rent annually.

The plaintiff and this constitutes a non-fixed term lease contract. Since the above lease contract was terminated on January 2020 after six months from the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiff's declaration of termination of the above lease contract was served on the defendant, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case, deliver the land of this case, and return the amount of unjust profits from the use of the land of this case.

B. Even if the Defendant did not waive the business district subject to the suspension of law for the land of this case, the term of the Defendant’s business district subject to the suspension of law shall be governed by Articles 281(1) and 280(1)2 of the Civil Act.