1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from March 10, 2016 to June 28, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The network C entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant, while managing 12 graves located in Gangseo-si D, had the Defendant used 397 square meters in Gangnam-si E-si and 1177 square meters in Yung-si (hereinafter “each land of this case”). The Defendant, while setting up a house on the land of this case (hereinafter “instant house”) and managing the grave, had the Defendant left the grave while living on the land of this case.

B. The Defendant, on October 21, 2005, buried the said grave and moved it to a charnel around 2004, paid KRW 300,000 per annum to the deceased C around October 21, 2005. After the death of the deceased C, the Defendant paid KRW 300,000 per year to the Nonparty G, who is the wife, from around 206 to around 2012.

C. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant land based on the agreement on the division of inherited property on November 29, 2005, and around June 17, 2013, sent the content-certified mail demanding the removal of the instant housing to the Defendant and served the Defendant around that time.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2-1 through 4; evidence Nos. 1 through 8; evidence Nos. 2-1 through 2; evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3; result of on-site inspection by this court; purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The main point of the party’s assertion is that the Defendant exercised the right to purchase the building in order to seek removal of the instant housing and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery and rent of each of the instant land on the grounds of the termination of the lease contract, etc., around the Plaintiff’s main point of the claim.

3. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) According to the above facts of determination on the cause of claim for removal of a building and delivery of land, it is reasonable to deem that a contract between the defendant and the deceased C constitutes a lease agreement for the possession of a building. The lease agreement is a lease with no term agreed, and at any time, the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the deceased C.