1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. Of the principal lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the first instance trial, the claim for the removal of buildings and the delivery of land was accepted, the lawsuit claiming the cost of restoration was dismissed, and the counterclaim filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the first instance trial was dismissed.

Since only the defendant filed an appeal, the part on the removal of the building and the part on the transfer of the land among the main claim against the defendant and the counterclaim are only the object of the judgment of the court.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s “ around May 201, 2012” stated in the first instance court’s decision No. 4 on May 1, 2013 is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning for the first instance judgment; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. Determination

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s claim on the Plaintiff’s main claim, the Defendant sub-leaseed the instant land to C without the Plaintiff’s consent. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail containing the Defendant’s intent to terminate the lease contract on the ground that the Defendant sub-leaseed the instant land to a third party without permission and used the object against the purpose of lease. The content-certified mail can be acknowledged to have been served on June 3, 2014 on the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant land was sub-leaseed with the Plaintiff’s consent because it cannot be directly cultivated due to aftermath of a traffic accident. However, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s testimony of the first instance and the witness of the trial of the first instance as well as the first instance as presented by the Defendant was consistent with the Defendant’s argument, and the remainder of the evidence presented by the Defendant alone does not interfere with the recognition of the above fact.