1. Based on the Plaintiff’s appeal, the part concerning the request for delivery of the building, etc. of the first instance judgment (the text No. 1-A) is as follows.

1. Scope of judgment of party members;

A. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the Defendant, on the ground of the termination of the lease agreement, against the Defendant, for the claim for delivery of the building stated in the purport of the claim, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or unjust enrichment amounting to the rent of the Plaintiff. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for return of damages equivalent to the rent or unjust enrichment amounting to the rent of the building, but dismissed the remainder of the claim (delivery at the same time as the Plaintiff received payment of KRW 137,458,593)

B. The second instance judgment prior to remand dismissed both the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal. The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the part of the second instance judgment prior to remand, respectively, and filed an appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the part against the Plaintiff on the ground that it was unreasonable to accept the Defendant’s claim for purchase of ground property before remand and reject part of the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the Plaintiff’s building, etc., and dismissed

C. Therefore, the scope of the trial of this court after remand is limited to the part against the plaintiff in the second instance before remanding, and the part against the plaintiff (the part against the defendant) was separately determined.

2. 【Ground for recognition of the basic fact】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 16, Eul’s evidence 1 through 10, Eul’s partial testimony of witness D of the first instance court, the result of the market price appraisal by appraiser E of the first instance court, the purport of all pleadings.

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around 2004, and the real estate listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(ii)A facility 17 square meters which is made of the roof and the wall surface on the ground so that persons finding the medicinal wave may avoid rain and winding. (ii) On March 29, 2005, the Defendant shall, with the consent of the Plaintiff, conduct flat operations with the permission of diversion of farmland on the land of this case and install part of the wall in the above facility.