All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants.

The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows: “D” in Section 4, Section 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the first representative director of Defendant A established for the installation and operation of a golf driving range, etc. on May 198), “F” in Section 5, respectively; and “F” in Section 5, respectively; and “401,434,560” in Section 2 of Section 13 is deemed as “401,324,560,” and “40,324,560,” in Section 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed as “40,000,000,000,000 won” in Section 13.

The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that each reinstatement agreement under a lease agreement with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant lease agreement and each of the above lease agreements (hereinafter “each of the instant agreements”) is not intended to give up in advance the right to demand the purchase of land or the right to claim the reimbursement of beneficial non-performance. If each of the instant agreements is a waiver agreement for the right to demand the purchase of land or the right to claim the reimbursement of beneficial non-performance, such agreement is null and void as a juristic act with respect to matters contrary to the good customs and other social order under Article 104 of the Civil Act

Therefore, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant A the total amount of KRW 1,487,381,560 ( KRW 401,324,560,086,057,00) arising from the exercise of the right to purchase ground property and the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial costs. The Plaintiff’s principal claim on the premise that the Defendant A renounced the right to claim for ground property and the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial costs should be dismissed.

. Determination.