1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked:

[Quotation of the judgment of the court of first instance] The reasons why this court must explain from the second to the second to the second to the 10th 6th , among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as the reasons why this court should explain. Thus, it is citing it as it is

【Additional Statements】

C. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted as to the claim for the extinguishment of superficies following the claim for the extinguishment of superficies. The Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land on June 28, 2013, and the Defendant A did not pay rent for more than two years from that time. On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant A to pay rent for more than two years. On September 14, 2015, Defendant A expressed his/her intent to claim the extinguishment of superficies under Article 287 of the Civil Act on the ground that he/she did not pay the said rent. Accordingly, the statutory superficies of the Defendant A extinguished. (2) The land rent of the statutory superficies is determined in the form of a land-designated lawsuit, a "type formation lawsuit" under the proviso to Article 366 of the Civil Act, but it is sufficient to determine the court’s ruling that it is possible to pay the rent for a specific period without undergoing a formal formation lawsuit, and if it is possible for the court to decide the rent for the reasons for the judgment.

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s decision on the ground that the court below’s decision on the ground that the court below’s decision on the ground that the court below’s decision on the ground that the court below’s decision on the ground that the court below’s decision on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that the court below did not

However, for the purpose of legal superficies of this case, Defendant A.