1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) remove the buildings listed in the Appendix 1 Schedule;

(b) the land listed in the Appendix No. 2.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

On January 21, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the donation on January 19, 2002 with respect to the land listed in the Attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 23, 1994, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on February 22, 1994 with respect to buildings listed in the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The Defendant: (a) leased the instant land by designating rice 1 Gama as the annual rent; and (b) even after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the same content as the said lease agreement, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant land.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the rent from 2009 to 2013, on the ground that the said lease contract was terminated, and the instant warden was served on April 6, 2017 on the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. 1) The burden of proof on the cause of the claim lies on the lessee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da19647, Jan. 13, 2005), and on the fact that the Plaintiff paid the rent under a lease agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da19647, Jan. 13, 2005), and on the sole basis of the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the rent from 2009 to 2013, and there is no specific assertion on the method of paying the rent (e.g., payment of the rent of 1 Gama, rice per year) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is reasonable to deem that the lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was legally terminated on April 6,

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot claim the right to terminate the contract, but the plaintiff can not claim the right to terminate the contract.