1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this case are as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following items to the three pages of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, (c) it is in accordance

[Supplementary part] The plaintiffs asserts that since the defendant did not express his/her intent to refuse the renewal of the lease within the term of lease, the lease agreement on the attached list and the real estate indicated by drawings between the plaintiffs and the defendant (hereinafter "the lease agreement of this case") was implicitly renewed.

However, Article 643 of the Civil Act provides, with respect to a claim for renewal of a lease agreement, that the lessee may request renewal of the lease agreement and determine whether to renew the lease agreement when the period of land lease for the purpose of owning or planting, collecting salt, or cutting down the building or any other structure, expires. Thus, in a case where the lessor does not want renewal, it is not necessarily necessary to explicitly state his/her intention of refusal within the lease period.

Furthermore, in light of the content of conciliation formed in the case No. 2011Gahap6045, the Defendant’s explicit rejection intention expressed in the instant case regarding the renewal of the lease agreement, etc., it cannot be deemed that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed due to the Defendant’s failure to raise an objection to the Plaintiffs’ land use and profit-making after the expiration of the lease term within a reasonable period.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserts that the defendant who cannot refuse the claim for purchase of ground facilities pursuant to Articles 643 and 283(2) of the Civil Act cannot refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement.

However, in light of the main purpose of the instant lease agreement, it can be concluded that the ground facilities owned by the Plaintiffs are subject to the claim for purchase under the above provisions.