(b)the exercise of the right to purchase cannot be denied on the basis of the establishment of a mortgage on a building;

(c) cannot be deemed to include a claim seeking a building name map as well as the purchase payment of the building and the request for delivery of the building site;

(b)the exercise of the right to purchase cannot be denied on the basis of the establishment of a mortgage on a building;

(c) cannot be deemed to include a claim seeking a building name map as well as the purchase payment of the building and the request for delivery of the building site;

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The judgment on the first (2) of that agent’s grounds of appeal;

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the non-party 3 (the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, 1953 corporation was holding the building on November 5, 1953 after the designation of land substitution under the land substitution project for Busan City Urban Planning on October 7, 1940 as to the building site was based on the evidence cited by him, and that the building was constructed without the consent of the non-party 3, but the non-party 3 and the above non-party company continued to own the building on January 1, 1957 and renewed the lease contract for one year for the building ownership from January 1, 1957, and thereafter the ownership of the building was transferred to the defendant company from 1960 to the above non-party company. Since the contract was concluded with the non-party 1, the non-party company, the former owner of the building, renewed the building every year, and the contract continued to exist for use or profit-making in the above building site for 1967 years.

1) Determination as to subparagraph 1-3 of the Grounds for Appeal by such agents;

According to the records, the plaintiff's lease contract is (1) since the non-party 4, who is the former owner of this site, did not enter into the lease contract for the purpose of owning the building, between the non-party 3 or his successor, and it does not correspond to Article 622 of the Civil Code, but due to bad faith, the defendant company is obligated to pay the rent after the expiration of the lease period, and there is no room to establish the right to purchase the contract. (2) Even if the house is groundless, it is a lease contract without a contract for the period of time, and (3) it is clear that the defendant company acquired the ownership of the building after the termination of the lease contract with the non-party 6 under Article 640 of the Civil Code. Thus, the court below should have determined that the contract was terminated by the non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 3's non-party 3's claim.

The judgment on the first (4) of that agent’s grounds of appeal;

The purport of recognizing the right to purchase lies in the need of national economy and the recovery of the capital invested by lessees and the protection of the right to lease. Therefore, even though the building in dispute is recognized by the court below as being constructed over the land owned by the plaintiff and on the ground owned by the defendant Taeyang Unemployment Co., Ltd., the defendant cannot exercise the right to purchase against the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, and the defendant cannot exercise the right to purchase against the part existing on the ground of this case among the building in dispute, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, and the defendant cannot exercise the right to purchase against the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot exercise the right to purchase the right to purchase against the second building on the ground that the mortgage of the lawsuit is established on the construction of the building in dispute, and if the contract remains in dispute and the contract is terminated, the plaintiff shall request the renewal and the right to request the purchase upon the termination of the lease. In addition, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have erred by failing to determine the price, and therefore, it cannot be argued that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the existence and the right to purchase.

Judgment on the second ground of appeal by such agent;

In this case, the plaintiff's claim for removal of the building and delivery of the building site can not be deemed to include a claim for the purchase price of the building at the same time as the purchase price of the building was made (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da548 delivered on May 24, 196, Supreme Court Decision 66Da548 delivered on June 28, 196, Supreme Court Decision 66Da712 delivered on June 28, 196, and Supreme Court Decision 66Da712 delivered on June 28, 196), and there is no need to modify this. Therefore, the opposing opinion is unfair, and there is no error of law in the incomplete hearing due to the non-exercise of the right to know, and there is no independent opinion, and according to the records, it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for damages of the Extraordinary party is based on the premise that the defendant company has illegally occupied the building site owned by the plaintiff, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a mistake in this regard.

Judgment on the third ground for appeal by such agent

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below stated that "Nos. 19-1 through 4 (Abstract of register), verification of the original court and the first instance court, the result of appraisal, and Non-Party 2's testimony of the witness of the court below that the defendant Taeyang Unemployment Co., Ltd., which did not dispute the establishment, only indicate "one lot number 1 omitted)," out of (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted, (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted), and only indicate that the adjacent (number 2 omitted), and that it was not accurate and accurate (number 3 omitted), and that the registration of the completion of the construction of the lot number and the case cannot be seen as a separate building without identity with the difference of this degree, and if so, it can be justified in the examination of evidence by the records of the court below, it cannot be deemed that it did not considerably affect the concept of the general public, 298-196.29.25.297

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)