1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. Following the expansion of the plaintiff's claim in this court.

Basic facts and counterclaims are also viewed as the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

The Plaintiff is an institution entrusted by the Republic of Korea, which is the owner of land of Pyeongtaek-si B,862 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), with the management of the said land.

Around 25 years ago, the Defendant finally concluded a loan agreement on State property (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Plaintiff on the said land by taking into account the following factors: (a) the purpose of the use of the land is “ cultivation”, “from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016” and “amount calculated according to the State Property Act and subordinate statutes” as “amount calculated according to the State Property Act and subordinate statutes.”

Article 7 (Restrictions on Acts by Persons who Receive Loans) B (referring to the defendant) (referring to the plaintiff) shall not perform any of the following acts without obtaining approval from Gap (referring to the plaintiff):

1. Change of the purpose of use;

2. Change of the original state of the leased property;

3. Where the loan period for the installation of facilities in loan property expires or this contract is terminated, Eul shall restore the loan property to its original state by the deadline designated by the Party A and return it in the participation of Party A;

Provided, That where it is unnecessary to restore leased property to its original state due to the nature of the purpose of use and the approval of Gap is obtained, it may not be returned to its original state.

The instant loan agreement includes the following contract provisions.

Since then, the Plaintiff did not renew the above loan agreement on the ground that “the Defendant installed illegal facilities, such as container stuff, on the ground of the instant land in violation of the purpose of the loan agreement, and loaded construction wastes.”

Since then, on April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the imposition of indemnity by an illegal possession of State property, and sent a document to the Defendant on August 27, 2018 and October 16, 2018, demanding the Defendant to remove illegal buildings and deliver the pertinent land.