1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The part concerning the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. As to this part of the facts of recognition, the reasons for this decision are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Attachment] The actual substance of the decision of the court of first instance is "the name or registration name of the owner" in Section 13 of the decision of the court of first instance.

The actual substance is that the “instant land” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is considered as “instant land” in Part 18.

In the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the "building of this case" in the 19th judgment shall be considered as the "building separately".

The actual substance of the 5th judgment of the first instance court is that "the building of this case" is "the building of this case" in the 24th judgment.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim

A. As to this part of the judgment on this claim, this court's reasoning is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second through 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second part of the second part of the second part of the judgment) as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(B) According to the facts as to whether the instant lease contract was terminated by the notification of termination on September 23, 2014, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease contract was terminated by the notification of termination on September 23, 2014 as follows: (a) the Defendant’s completion of the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant D land, which is a part of the leased object, to the Korea Rail Network Authority prior to the expiration of the instant lease contract, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff, who is the lessee, to use and make profits from the remaining portion; and (b) the Plaintiff’s termination by the notification of termination on September 23, 20

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the purpose of the lease can be achieved only with the land of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's termination notification as of September 23, 2014 is null and void. However, the contract of this case is agreed upon.