토지인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Attached drawings in the judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the defendant’s additional assertion in this court, and it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Parts to be determined additionally
A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is unable to comply with the claim for delivery until the purchase price of each building of this case is paid by the plaintiff, on June 19, 2020, by serving a written brief as of June 19, 2020.
The plaintiff asserts that there was an agreement to restore the land of this case to its original state.
B. Determination 1) Since Article 643 of the Civil Act regarding the lessee’s right to demand purchase is a mandatory provision, it is invalid as an agreement that violates such provision and is unfavorable to the lessee or lessee. Thus, whether an agreement is unfavorable to the lessee, etc. should first be determined based on the terms and conditions of the relevant contract itself, but if special circumstances can be acknowledged that cannot be deemed disadvantageous to the lessee, etc. in substance, considering the process of concluding the contract and the overall circumstances, etc., it shall not be deemed that the agreement does not conflict with the compulsory provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da4543, Apr. 8, 1997; 201Da1231, May 26, 2011). 2) Comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence No. 3, the Defendant will transfer the land to its original state on April 10, 2018, and if the agreement is not transferred by the aforementioned date, it shall be deemed that the land should be restored to its original state.
Since it is recognized that the special contract of this case was delivered, it is reasonable to view that the special contract of this case is an agreement to waive the right to purchase ground.
However, the defendant is above.