1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, through competitive bidding on February 1, 2004, obtained permission from the head of the Seoul Regional Office of Railroad (the Office of Railroad Facility Management before the Defendant was established) to use 135 square meters of the land B from February 1, 2004 to January 31, 2005, the use period of which was determined as the office (the head of the Information Office for Persons with Disabilities) and the user fee of KRW 3,750,00,00, from the head of the Seoul Regional Office for Railroad Facility Management (hereinafter “instant land”). Around that time, the Plaintiff newly built the office building on the above land.

B. On March 25, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the permission for use of the instant land would be terminated on April 30, 201, on the ground that the said permission was renewed each year, for a long period of use, etc.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for settlement prior to filing a lawsuit against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant rendered a settlement prior to filing a lawsuit on June 2, 201 with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 201No. 48 on the instant land and its ground buildings, as follows:

1. The use permission period is from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2012.

2. The whole facilities installed on the instant land shall be voluntarily removed at the expiration of the permission period and shall be ordered to be restored to its original state and ordered to the Defendant;

3. No compensation shall be required, such as expenses for scenic beauty facilities, investment expenses, goodwill, and losses.

4. does not claim the right of interest, right of interest, right of interest, right of interest, etc. in a scenic city.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 in the evidence No. 1, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that the settlement protocol of this case was forced by the Defendant to refuse to permit the use of the land of this case in the event that the said protocol is not prepared, and its content is also null and void since it is contrary to the legal principles of the right to purchase ground property stipulated in Article 643 of the Civil Act, which is a mandatory provision

The instant land is miscellaneous property, and the permission for use of the said land is a loan agreement and a lease agreement under the Civil Act, and the Plaintiff is a building on the instant land for the last ten years.