As acknowledged by the court below, as long as the termination of the lease agreement by the plaintiff on the site of this case is valid, the defendants have been residing in the above ground building by unilaterally increasing the rent from the plaintiff to the plaintiff to the close of about 30 years. The plaintiff brought an action for rent and claim for rent, which was against the plaintiff, and as the plaintiff lost, the plaintiff brought an action for removal of the above ground building and delivery of the site. Further, the market price of the land of this case for which the plaintiff seeks removal is only 400 won per ordinary day. The market price of the building owned by the defendants seeking removal of the above site of this case is only 9,000 won per square day for defendant 1, and even if the plaintiff 2 becomes 17,00,58,000 won per square day for defendant 2, the above circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the plaintiff's right, and therefore, the court below's above determination is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's removal of the building of this case and its abuse of right.

As discussed in the arguments, the value of a building seeking removal is remarkably high compared to the value of the site for which delivery is sought, and there is no ground to conclude that the claim is an abuse of rights.

Next, as to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 1, 1946, the court below determined that the lease contract was terminated by July 22 of the same year after six months have elapsed since the Plaintiff was notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract, and that the lessee’s right to purchase the building under Article 643 of the Civil Act was terminated by the notice of termination of the lease contract, and there is no room to acknowledge the above claim in this case, if the lease contract without the agreement is terminated by the notice of termination of the lease contract. Furthermore, as to the lease in this case, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s right to request the renewal of the lease contract after receiving the notice of termination from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s right to request the renewal of the lease contract cannot be determined by the court after submitting a written reply against the Plaintiff’s right to request the renewal of the lease contract as the case was pending against the Defendants at May 8, 1974.

However, it is reasonable to view that the lessee's right to demand purchase of a building as stipulated in Article 643 of the Civil Act is acknowledged as the lessee's right to demand renewal of the contract in general in case the lessee's right to demand the renewal of the contract expires due to the expiration of the agreed term of the lease and the lessee's right to demand purchase of the building should be acknowledged as non-existence of the lessee's right to demand the renewal of the lease when the lessee refuses it by the lessor's refusal of the lease. Thus, even in case the lease expires due to the lessee's refusal of the term of the lease, the lessee's right to demand purchase of the building takes effect after the expiration of the term of the lease as stated in this case, and there is no difference between the above-mentioned contract and the above-mentioned contract that the lessor who notified the lessee of the termination of the right to demand the purchase of the building should not be deemed as the lessee's right to demand renewal of the lease contract, regardless of the existence of the right to demand renewal of the lease contract's right to demand the cancellation of the lease contract.

If so, the court below rejected Defendant 2’s assertion on the right to purchase a building solely based on the above reasoning, which affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the right to purchase a building by a land lessee, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal to this point is justified.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is groundless, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed portion are assessed against the losing party. Of the original judgment, the part against Defendant 2 is reversed and remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)