1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts as follows.

① According to the second agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise any objection even after the expiration of the due date. Thus, even if the Defendant delayed the performance of obligations pursuant to the second agreement, the sales contract between the original Defendant is valid, and if the Defendant pays to the Plaintiff at any time, the Plaintiff shall transfer the ownership of the land to the Defendant.

Therefore, since the agreement under the second agreement still remains effective, the plaintiff cannot demand the defendant to remove containers.

② At the time of the preparation of the second agreement, the Defendant had to bear all the expenses. However, as the agreement under the second agreement was reversed, the above part of the agreement was reversed.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant with the authorization and permission on the instant forest, etc., the Plaintiff should pay the expenses incurred in performing delegated affairs to the Defendant, who is the mandatory.

The plaintiff's reimbursement of expenses and the collection of the defendant must be implemented simultaneously.

The agreement is reversed when the plaintiff and the defendant are unable to implement the commitments specified in the second agreement by March 2, 2014, and the defendant does not raise any objection, and the defendant shall immediately restore all of the above land to its original state, and the land owner shall sell the land to a third party.

As seen earlier, if the defendant fails to perform his obligations under the second agreement by March 2, 2014, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is no longer effective.

② In addition, on November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant needed to grant authorization for the instant forest land.