1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant-appellant is dismissed.

3...

1. The plaintiff's application and permission for taking over the lawsuit of this case are the first lawsuit of this case, under the premise that the defendant is not the party to the lease contract for the land of this case, the removal of the building of this case and the facilities of this case, the request for taking over the land of this case and the request for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the time of delivery of the land of this case, and the defendant's conjunctively accepted the defendant's defense of claiming purchase of the building of this case as the party to the lease contract of this case. At the same time, the court of first instance requested the delivery of the building of this case and the registration of transfer of ownership for the building of this case under the premise that the plaintiff is not the party to the lease contract for the land of this case, but the defendant is the party to the lease contract

On the other hand, when the ownership of the building of this case was changed from the defendant to the defendant defendant, the plaintiff applied for the acceptance of the lawsuit against the defendant defendant, and the court permitted it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case remains only in the claim against the defendant defendant.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on January 5, 1987 due to sale on December 27, 1986.

B. As to the instant building located on the ground of the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer in D’s name was completed on July 20, 2004, and on July 19, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer in E’s name was completed on the ground of sale as of July 19, 2004, and the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name was completed on the ground of sale as of January 17, 2008, and since the completion of the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name, the Intervenor, his mother, was residing in the instant building.

On the other hand, however,