[건물철거][하집1988(1),103]
Whether a lease contract has been terminated due to default such as a delayed rent (negative)
The lessee may request the lessor to purchase the ground property only when the term of the lease contract expires and the lessor does not request the renewal thereof. In the event the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee's default, such as rent and delayed payment, there is no room for the lessee to claim the renewal of the lease. Therefore, the lessee's right to claim the purchase of the ground property cannot be exercised.
Article 643 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 62Da496 Decided October 11, 1962 (Article 643(1)1017Ka8167 Decided October 10, 1967
Red c. Sal.
Kim Yong-tae
Daegu District Court Decision 86Na1754 delivered on June 11, 1987
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant removed the part (i) of the ship connecting the plaintiff with each point of (2), 5, 6, 8, and 2 of the [Attachment Map No. 2, 5, 6, 8 of 1305-3, 570.6 square meters, Taegu Seo-gu, 1305-6, and each point of (2, 9, 7, 8, 8, and 2 of the same map No. 50.08 square meters and the first floor No. 50.08 square meters and the second floor No. 2, 9, 7, 8, and 3, 35.34 square meters of the second floor and the second floor No. 3,10, 11, 12, and 3 of the ship connecting each point in sequence with the plaintiff.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The plaintiff's claim is revoked and dismissed.
Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
On October 11, 1974, the Defendant leased the site of this case owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 29,50,00 per annum 570.6 meters (hereinafter “the site of this case”) on the following grounds: (a) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; (b) evidence Nos. 1 (written appraisal) and 2 (written appraisal); and (c) evidence No. 3 (written appraisal of real estate lease agreement); and (d) there is no dispute over the establishment of a public portion; and (b) the private portion of this case was not established by the purport of the oral argument No. 5-2 (Notice) and the whole purport of the oral argument, comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the oral argument, the Defendant did not have an obligation to remove the above rent for the site of this case owned by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff at KRW 29,50,00; (c) on the ground of construction of each building as stated in the purport of this case’s lease agreement (hereinafter “the building of this case”); and (d) there was no other obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1508.5.2.
However, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should purchase the building of this case after leasing the building of this case from the plaintiff for the purpose of owning the building of this case with the plaintiff's consent. However, in the land lease contract, the tenant's right to claim the ground property of this case can be claimed against the landlord only when the lease contract term expires and the landlord does not accept a request for renewal thereof. In the case where the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee's default such as delayed rent, etc., the tenant's right to claim the renewal of the lease contract does not occur, and therefore, the lessee's right to claim the ground property of this case cannot be exercised. Thus, as seen above, the above lease contract is terminated on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated on
In addition, the defendant reconstructed the building of this case with the plaintiff's consent in 1984, which was about KRW 8,700,000. At that time, the plaintiff promised to return the above expenses to the defendant at the time of termination of the lease. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case without being returned. Thus, according to the whole purport of the statement of Nos. 2 (written confirmation) and oral argument, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, at the time of maintaining the street environment of Daegu City around 1984, performed the construction and new construction of the building of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff promised to pay the repair expenses to the defendant at the time of termination of the lease. Rather, according to the evidence No. 3, it is acknowledged that the construction and new construction of new construction of the building of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of delivery of the above land at the same time.
Therefore, in this case where the defendant does not assert or prove otherwise against the title to possess and use the land of this case, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case owned by the defendant on its ground to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and reasonable, and the decision of the court below is delivered with the order to dismiss the defendant's appeal which caused the plaintiff's ground to be justified and justified. The decision of the court below is delivered with the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal cost.
Judge Cho Soo-soo (Presiding Judge)