지상권확인등
The judgment below
Of them, the part of the principal claim against the land trust company against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the land trust company against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the main claim
A. The interpretation of a juristic act clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of representation. In the event that there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, and the interpretation of the parties is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da1142 Decided April 29, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da5134 Decided December 27, 201, etc.). Meanwhile, since Article 643 of the Civil Act regarding the right to demand the lessee’s purchase is a mandatory provision, an agreement violating this provision that is disadvantageous to the lessee is null and void (Article 652 of the Civil Act). Whether the agreement is unfavorable to the lessee is an agreement unfavorable to the lessee is based on the pertinent contractual terms and conditions. However, if special circumstances that cannot be deemed disadvantageous to the lessee can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the details of the conclusion of the agreement, overall circumstances, etc., it shall be deemed that the said mandatory provision does not conflict with
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da36130 delivered on April 14, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 96Da4543 delivered on April 8, 1997, etc.) B.
The judgment below
According to the reasoning and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.
(1) (A) On September 1986, the physical body and the Korean National Railroad Service under the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) are owned by the Plaintiff, and is not more than 5,056§³ in Yongsan-gu, Seoul.