1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim added in the first instance as a preliminary one, shall be amended as follows:

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "as of May 13, 2015, which is close to the closing date of pleadings in this case" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as "as of May 13, 2015, which is close to the closing date of pleadings in this case"; "this court" in Part 12 shall be dismissed as "the court of first instance" and Article 4-2 (b) [the judgment on the claim on the grounds of the expiration date] of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Attachment] According to the facts seen earlier prior to the determination of the claim for transfer of land and removal of a building (the main claim) on the ground of expiration of the period of validity, the statutory superficies for the ownership of the building of this case (hereinafter “the statutory superficies of this case”) terminated on July 11, 2015.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to remove the building of this case to the plaintiffs and deliver the occupation of this case to the plaintiffs.

B) First of all, the defendant's defense is a defense that he exercises the right to renew the legal superficies of this case against the plaintiffs. Thus, if buildings, other structures, or trees remain in the event of termination of the superficies, the person holding the superficies can claim renewal of the contract (see Article 283 (1) of the Civil Act). However, the same applies to the case of legal superficies. However, the right to demand renewal of the superficies is not the right to form a right to claim renewal of the contract, but it is merely the right to claim renewal of the contract to the land owner, and it is effective to renew the contract by entering into the contract with the person holding the superficies in response to the claim for renewal of the contract. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit, under the premise that the plaintiffs did not comply