1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" to the defendant's new argument in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The Defendant’s additional determination does not pay rent in bad faith on the fact that the Plaintiff’s account was terminated by automatic transfer, but does not delay the rent in bad faith. Removal of the house equivalent to KRW 25.2 million is a social loss and thus the lease contract is terminated.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should purchase the house owned by the defendant.

In a case where the lease contract is terminated due to nonperformance such as a lessee’s delay in the lease of land, even if the Defendant’s assertion as above is exercised as a lessee of land for the purpose of owning a building, the land lessee cannot claim the purchase of the above ground building against the lessor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da29345, Feb. 27, 1996). Therefore, there is no reason for the landowner to claim the purchase of the above ground building.

3. The decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.