1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lease contract was unlawful as the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant real estate from the Defendant while the Plaintiff leased and used the instant real estate pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and thus the instant lease agreement was extinguished. Thus, the instant lawsuit is no longer unlawful as there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the right of lease under the instant lease agreement.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 4, the Defendant, on February 20, 2017, concluded the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on February 20, 2017, and the Plaintiff, on the second day for pleading of the first instance trial, stated to the effect that “It is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff to continue to exist before February 20, 2017, when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.”

According to the above facts of recognition, there is no dispute over the termination of the right of lease under the instant lease as of February 20, 2017.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff asserts this, it is reasonable to deem that the contract of this case was implicitly agreed upon by the defendant by transferring the ownership of the real estate in this case to the plaintiff, and there is no interest to seek confirmation as to whether the lease of this case exists under the lease contract in this case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da13857, Feb. 26, 1991). Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right of lease based on the instant lease agreement.