1. The defendant removed the building indicated in the attached list from the plaintiff's successor intervenor, and the Do-gun, Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease term of KRW 45,000 per annum, and the lease term of KRW 60 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the “instant land” (hereinafter “instant land”), which was owned by the Defendant, for a period of 45,00 square meters per annum and 60 months.

B. On July 2012 after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant continuously occupied and used the instant land by constructing a new building on the instant land as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On January 8, 2013, the Defendant paid 45,000 won a rent based on the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff and did not pay the Plaintiff a rent any longer.

Accordingly, on August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of not less than two years of arrears by serving the instant complaint on the Defendant.

On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff’s successor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant does not have the right to use the land of this case any longer following the termination of the lease contract of this case, and thus, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the owner of the land of this case, is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was to use the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as “free of charge.” As such, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor cannot assert the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the delinquency in rent.

Therefore, since the defendant is entitled to use the land of this case, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor cannot comply with the claim of this case.

B. The Defendant determined the instant land between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.