(b) Whether the right to demand purchase of a building may be exercised where a building site is leased by an agreement to remove the building if there is no statutory superficies on the building;

B. If a party, who acquired the above building from Gap before the lease of it, rents the above site under the agreement to remove the building in a case where there is no superficies between the two parties, such an agreement to remove the building cannot be deemed an agreement which is unilaterally unfavorable to the lessee, and thus, cannot exercise the right to purchase the building under Article 643 of the Civil Act.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 15 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

2.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

가. 원고 민병기에게 공주시 교동 107의 2 대 463.8제곱미터 중 별지도면표시 14, 15, 16, 17, 14의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (가)부분 변소 3.7제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 18, 19, 20, 21, 18의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (나)부분 창고 13.0제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 21, 20, 22, 23, 24, 21의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (다)부분 차양 12.3제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 19, 25, 26, 22, 20, 19의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (라)부분 주택 99.0제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 23, 22의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (마)부분 툇마루 14.1제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 25, 30, 31, 32, 25의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (챠)부분 창고 2.3제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 25, 32, 27, 26, 25의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (캬)부분 주택 및 창고 5.8제곱미터를 각 철거하고, 위 대지 463.8제곱미터를 인도하고,

나. 원고 민홍기에게 위 같은 동 107의 4 대지 328.6제곱미터와 같은 동 108의 3 대지 309.8제곱미터 중 위 같은 도면 표시 44, 41, 42, 43, 44의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (바)부분 주택 13.8제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 31, 33, 34, 32, 31의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (사)부분 창고 및 주택 29.7제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 27, 32의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (아)부분 주택 및 창고 207.5제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 47, 48, 49, 50, 47의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (자)부분 사무실 15.9제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 35, 51, 36, 35의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (댜)부분 사무실 4.6제곱미터, 같은 도면표시 27, 44, 43, 28, 27의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (샤)부분 툇마루 3.5제곱미터를 철거하고, 위 같은 동 107의 4 대지 328.6제곱미터와 같은 동 108의 3 대지 309.8제곱미터를 인도하라.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

Therefore, among the land of this case, the above 107-2 to 463.8m2 of the same 107-2 to 107-4 to 107-3 to 328.6m2, and 108-8m2 of the same 107-3 to 309.8m2 are presumed to belong to the plaintiff's interest, respectively, and the building of this case shall be presumed to belong to the defendant's interest. Thus, since the defendant owned the building of this case on the site of this case, which is owned by the plaintiffs, and thus it interferes with the plaintiffs' use and profit-making of the above site, the plaintiff's request for removal of the building and delivery of the site should be complied with unless

In this regard, the defendant originally owned the building and site of this case by the non-party public-private partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "agricultural cooperative"), and the non-party public-private partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "FFC") acquired the legal superficies on the above site as the non-party public-private partnership purchased only the above site and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and thereafter, the above building was transferred to the defendant via Jup and the non-party harmful South, and the above building was transferred to the plaintiffs, and the customary legal superficies acquired by the above agricultural cooperative together with the above building was transferred in sequence, and the defendant also can claim the registration of establishment of the superficies against the non-party public-private partnership, the owner of the building of this case, and the plaintiff who was the owner of the building of this case, who was the owner of the building of this case, and the plaintiff who was the owner of the building can not be permitted to remove the building on the basis of the principle of trust and good faith.

Therefore, as to whether the said Nonghyup acquired customary legal superficies on the instant land, comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence 1-1-3 (a certified copy of each register), Gap evidence 5 (a receipt), Eul evidence 1-1-1 (a certified copy of each register), and the whole purport of the pleadings as to the testimony of the witness sexual creation and Kim Jong-hee, as to whether the said Nonghyup acquired customary legal superficies on November 25, 1983, the said locked purchased the land of this case and three lots owned by the said Nonghyup, together with the land of this case, and paid all remaining 59,60,000 won on November 18, 1983, and then completed the registration of ownership transfer on three lots of the instant land under one’s own name as to November 29, 1983, but the building of this case is expected to be removed, and thus, it cannot be recognized otherwise as being against the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the said Nonghyup No. 18835, Dec. 13, 1984.

According to the above facts, the building site and buildings of this case were originally owned by the agricultural cooperative, but the above agricultural cooperative sold the building site and buildings to sericultural cooperative without completing the registration of ownership transfer as to the building site and the sericultural cooperative formally remains in the name of the above agricultural cooperative, and the building site and building remains in the name of the above agricultural cooperative. Thus, the issue of possession and use of the above building site and building can be resolved by contract between the above sericultural cooperative and the agricultural cooperative. Thus, it is not necessary to recognize legal superficies under customary law between the above agricultural cooperative and sericultural cooperative. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the above Dominal cooperative acquired legal superficies under custom on the building site of this case only in its name and the owner of the above building remains in the above agricultural cooperative (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da83419, Jul. 26, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Meu419, Apr. 20, 200).

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that since the defendant entered into a housing site lease agreement with the plaintiff's civilian soldier representing the plaintiffs on the instant land for the purpose of owning the building, the defendant has the right to purchase the instant ground building.

In full view of each statement of evidence No. 2-2 (Agreement) and evidence No. 3-1 through No. 4 (No. 3-2) and each statement of evidence No. 3-4 (No. 3-2, the same as evidence No. 3-2) as above and the whole purport of the pleading in the testimony of the above sex creation, the defendant disputes as to the existence of statutory superficies for the ownership of the building of this case between the plaintiffs who are the owner of the building and the owner of the building. On July 26, 1988, under the agreement between the defendant and the defendant that the owner of the building of this case remove legal superficies for the ownership of the building of this case. On August 26, 1988, the land of this case shall be leased one year to the defendant, and if the period expires from August 1, 1991 every year, it is recognized that the lease contract was concluded, and there is no counter-proof evidence otherwise, and the above agreement cannot be concluded for the defendant to remove the building site of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the building portion of the order entry and deliver the site to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the fulfillment of the duty is justified and it is decided as per the disposition. (Attached omission)

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)