1. The Defendant indicated the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4. The Plaintiff among the annexed drawings 2271m2 and D 2404m2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2016, the Defendant leased land F, land F, and C from E to December 2016, 2016, setting the lease period from December 2, 2016 to December 202, 20, and set agricultural houses.

B. On October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased from G’s heir G the return 2271m2 and D 2404m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) from G and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 17, 2017.

C. There are facilities listed in Paragraph (1) of the disposition that the defendant installed at the e part of the attached drawing or the e part of the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the facilities on the part of the e part of the attached Form or the e part of the e part, and deliver each of the land

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that “The Plaintiff is obliged to pay the purchase price to the Defendant, as it exercises the right to demand the ground under Article 643 of the Civil Act.

In the event that a lessor transfers land to a third party due to transfer of land, etc., the lessor’s status is succeeded or the lessee is able to oppose the right of lease against the landowner, the said right to purchase may be exercised against the new landowner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da7249, 72456, Apr. 26, 2017). However, in the instant case, there is no evidence to support that E’s status as a lessor is succeeded to the Plaintiff or that E’s right of lease exists, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.