(b) A case rejecting a lessee's claim for purchase because the agreement on demolition of a building on land as at the time of housing site lease is not disadvantageous to the lessee;

B. Since there was no economic value of the building, there was an agreement to remove the building without the conditions of the former owner of the building, and in addition, if the building owner had agreed to remove the building on the site without legal superficies in the wife where no legal superficies exists, such an agreement to remove the building cannot be deemed an agreement which is unilaterally unfavorable to the site lessee. Thus, Article 643 of the Civil Act is applied to the site owner.

The case holding that the prescribed right to purchase the building may not be exercised.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Under customary statutory superficies, one of the lands and buildings owned by the same person belongs to another person, and if the building owner uses another person's land without any right when there is no agreement as to the right to use the site, there are many cases where the building owner would be at a disadvantage in social and economic aspects. Thus, it is recognized to prevent the removal of the building by allowing the building owner to use the site lawfully. Thus, as determined by the court below, the building site of this case and the building of this case on its ground were originally owned by the Agricultural Cooperative of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural"), and the building of this case were originally owned by the non-party No. 1, Co. 3, Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul"), and the above 1, etc., were sold to the non-party No. 51, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "CF"), and the above 4, etc., the building site of this case would not be registered for ownership transfer, and if the building of this case remains in the name of the above No. 3, and the building owner of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal superficies based on custom such as theory of lawsuit in the original judgment. There is no reason to argue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, the defendant's legal representative asserted that the land in this case was owned by the plaintiffs and that the non-party was entitled to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the building in this case as the statement of preparatory brief dated November 18, 192 at the date of the sixth pleading in the first instance court, and that when the non-party acquired the building in this case by auction, he would acquire legal superficies according to customary law on the site in this case. The court below did not decide on this assertion, but did not decide on the court below's legitimate decision, as long as the plaintiffs did not acquire ownership on the building in this case as the court below determined legitimate, even if the non-party acquired the building in this case as the non-party did not acquire legal superficies according to customary law on the site in this case. Thus, the court below's omission of judgment does not affect the conclusion of judgment

3. On the third ground for appeal

The court below held that, if the plaintiffs were to purchase the building site of this case from the Dok-up, the building site of this case was old and worn-out and have no commercial value as the building site of this case, but if only the building was demolished because of its somewhat value, it would have been used as other building material, but it would have not been used as other building material, so the above Dok-up would temporarily use the building site of this case and would not have any economic value, so the above Dok-up would be excluded from sale and purchase without any condition after the lapse of a certain period, and there was a dispute as to the existence of legal superficies for the building of this case as the plaintiffs, the defendant acquired the building of this case before the building of this case and the owner of the building of this site requested the removal of the building of this case. In addition, if the defendant did not have legal superficies for the building site of this case, the court below unilaterally concluded the lease contract of this case under the agreement to remove the building of this case, the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the expiration of the lease contract, and there was no reasonable ground for removal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)