The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the Defendant’s new argument at this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that if the agreement of this case is a permission for use of and benefit from administrative property, and constitutes a patent in terms of lectures, the refusal of the plaintiff's refusal to apply for extension of the term of the agreement of the defendant constitutes an administrative disposition, and the lawsuit to challenge it must go through administrative litigation, not a civil lawsuit, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as it is unlawful and dismissed due to its violation of jurisdiction.

However, the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case is only the existence of the right to claim delivery of the building in this case, but not the invalidity of the plaintiff's refusal disposition against the application for extension of the contract term, and in a civil lawsuit where the invalidity of an administrative disposition becomes a preliminary question, the parties can assert the invalidity of the administrative disposition as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2279, Oct. 10, 1972; 2009Da9092, Apr. 8, 2010). The prior defense of the defendant's prior objection on a different premise is without merit.

The defendant asserts, based on Article 265 of the Civil Act, that the plaintiff should dismiss or dismiss the plaintiff's standing to sue on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the whole or the majority shares of the building of this case.

First of all, in a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as a person holding the standing to sue and who is asserted as a person holding the standing to sue, has standing to sue, and thus, whether he/she is qualified as a party by his/her own assertion of the plaintiff, and the defendant does not need to be a person holding the right to demand performance or a person holding the duty to perform (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). The defendant's defense prior to the above merits