The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the removal claim shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the part concerning the claim for delivery of land among the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant loan agreement was terminated upon expiration of the period, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have the right to demand purchase under Article 40(3)18 (h) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act with respect to the instant land, and there was no legitimate title to occupy the instant land, and that the Defendant did not have the right to demand purchase of trees planted on the instant land under Article 643

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or affecting the judgment.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the part of the claim for removal of a building, other than 350 square meters of concrete structures for storing wastes (hereinafter “instant building”).

A. Article 74 of the State Property Act provides that “Where a person occupies State property or installs facilities thereon without justifiable grounds, the head of a central government agency, etc. may remove such facilities or take other necessary measures by applying mutatis mutandis the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.” Thus, where the procedure for vicarious administrative execution is recognized, it is not allowed to seek removal of facilities by means of civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da242375, Jul. 11, 2017; 2019Da301340, Apr. 29, 2020).

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) asserted that the Defendant constructed the instant building on the instant land without any title, and should remove it. However, the Plaintiff, which is a state property, was constructed on the instant land by means of administrative vicarious execution pursuant to Article 74 of the State Property Act.