1. The Defendant indicated the attached Table 37, 38, 39, 48, 60, 61, 49, 50, among the land size of Pyeongtaek-si B, 327 square meters and 139 square meters prior to C, on the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 1995, the Plaintiff completed each registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of “sale on December 21, 1984,” with respect to each of the instant lands with respect to “a trade on December 21, 1984.”

B. The defendant's appraisal of each of the lands of this case is as follows: attached Table 37, 38, 39, 48, 60, 61, 69, 50, 51, 52, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 84, 85, 63, 64, 65, 65, 56, 56, 58, 59, 54, 53, 47, and 37, which are linked on the ground of each of the lands of this case, "a cement block and slve shelf building of this case and facilities attached thereto".

(2) holding the land of this case and holding the land of this case. [The facts of no dispute between the parties to the ground for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 2-2, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal by this court, the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove each of the buildings and their accessory facilities of this case to the plaintiff and deliver each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Around 1973, the Defendant asserted that there was a legitimate title to occupy each of the lands of this case, since the Defendant leased each of the lands of this case from the Plaintiff on a yearly basis without setting the term of existence, and the Plaintiff’s consent was obtained at the time of construction of each of the buildings of this case and its accessory facilities.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had obtained the Plaintiff’s consent at the time of construction of each of the instant buildings and their accessory facilities. Moreover, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the removal of each of the instant buildings and their accessory facilities and the delivery of each of the instant lands to the Defendant on March 17, 2015. Therefore, the said lease agreement without an agreement between the Defendant’s assertion period was lawfully terminated on September 18, 2015, when six months have elapsed since the said lease agreement was not agreed upon.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's status.