1. The defendant has each point in the order of indication 1,2, 4, 3, and 1 of the annexed drawings on the ground of 1,815 square meters prior to Daejeon Seo-gu C.

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 8, 1993 on the ground that the property was inherited on November 30, 198, as a result of the consultation and division on November 30, 1988.

On June 1, 2017, the Defendant entered into a real estate lease agreement between the Plaintiff’s type D and the Plaintiff’s type D to lease the instant land at the annual rent of KRW 1 million and the period of 60 months (hereinafter “instant contract”).

In addition, on June 1, 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract for the purchase of facilities and plants, etc. from E, a lessee of the instant land, to purchase at KRW 60 million, and paid KRW 60 million to E, and cultivated plants into a vinyl house from the instant land, and around June 2018, the Defendant extended a vinyl house to grow plants in the instant land and kept agricultural products, etc. and materials, etc. at the same place of work of a vinyl house (hereinafter “facilities of this case”) on the part inside which connects each point of 1, 2, 4, 3, and 1 in sequence of the attached drawings by extending the vinyl house on June 1, 2018.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

2. Determination on the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, inasmuch as the Defendant did not prove a legitimate title to lease the instant land, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant facilities located on the instant land and collect or gather crops, materials, etc. located on the instant facilities and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant lawfully concluded the contract of this case with D, who is the plaintiff's representative, and even if D is not the plaintiff's representative, the plaintiff is responsible for the expression representative under Articles 125, 126, and 129 of the Civil Code or confirmed D's unauthorized representation. Thus, the defendant asserts that D has a legitimate right to occupy and use the land of this case.