1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) deliver 1,360 square meters of miscellaneous land in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun;

(b) above;

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2010, Nonparty D, the husband of the Plaintiff, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease KRW 5 million with the lease deposit amount of KRW 1360,000,000 per annum, KRW 3 million per annum, and the lease term from March 22, 2010 to March 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On October 7, 2010, Nonparty E newly constructed a 79.5 square meters of a single-story structure on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership preservation on March 19, 2015. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 19, 2015 on the ground of sale on March 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion requests the plaintiff to transfer the land of this case on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated, so the plaintiff shall exercise his right to purchase the land of this case under Article 643 of the Civil Act.

B. We examine the judgment, and the right to purchase the ground property under Articles 643 and 644 of the Civil Code can be exercised only by the land lessee or sub-lessee, and the lessee of the land in this case where the building in this case is located is Nonparty D, not the plaintiff, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the plaintiff, who is not the lessee or sub-lessee, cannot exercise the right to demand the purchase of the ground under Article 643 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without examining further issues.

3. Determination on a counterclaim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff has a duty to deliver the land of this case to the defendant who exercises the right to exclude interference based on ownership, and remove the building of this case, and the plaintiff also has no legal ground.