1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Evidence 【Evidence】1, A2-1, A2-2, A3, A4, A5-1, 2, A6-1, 2, and B-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s ownership of the wife population C, 542 square meters, and D 826 square meters is the Plaintiff’s E.

B. On the ground above C, the Plaintiff constructed one prefabricated-type panel housing with the specifications indicated in the attached Form 1 drawings and one prefabricated-type panel housing on the above D ground without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case" in the attached drawing C.

On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 450,000 per month, and KRW 36 months for the housing indicated in the attached Forms 1 and 2.

On September 10, 2015, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport notified the Plaintiff on September 10, 2015 that the said housing should be removed as an unauthorized building by October 30, 2015.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) Whether there was an agreement on the termination of lease (A) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the lease agreement if the administrative agency ordered the removal of an unauthorized building at the time of concluding the lease agreement with the Plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff as an unauthorized building at the time when the Defendant entered into the counterargument lease agreement, and did not enter such matters in the lease agreement.

(2) The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

B. (1) Whether the lease is terminated due to the Plaintiff’s impossibility of performance, (a) the Plaintiff’s order to remove the Plaintiff’s assertion by the administrative agency claiming the removal of the building, thereby making it impossible to perform the duty of the lessor to the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s order was no longer available to occupy and use the building of this case, and thus, the lease with the Defendant

(B) The defendant has the right to continue to reside until the expiration of the lease term in response to the lease of the defendant.

(2) The judgment of this Court.