beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.22 2016나77063

건물등철거

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance shall include, among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the following, the fourth and fourth of the judgment:

The following shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same, except for the addition of the following:

2. On the 9th page 4 following the addition, the plaintiff sought withdrawal from the building of this case against the defendant, but as seen earlier, since the above building is owned by the defendant, it is deemed that the defendant has a legitimate authority to possess and use it, and thus the plaintiff's claim for this part is not accepted.

subsection (d).

1) The Defendant asserts that the right to demand the purchase of the instant land is recognized or not. The instant lease contract was a land lease for the purpose of owning a building. Since the Plaintiff refused to renew the contract, the Defendant was unable to exercise the right to demand the purchase of the instant building constructed on the ground of the instant land, and the Plaintiff cannot comply with the request for the transfer of the instant land and the request for the removal of the instant building unless the Plaintiff pays the purchase price equivalent to the sales price of the instant building to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease contract is not a land lease for the purpose of owning the instant building, and that the Plaintiff waivers the right to demand the purchase of the instant land by the agreement to restore the land to its original state at the Defendant’s expense when the Defendant returned the instant land at the time of the instant lease contract, the Defendant cannot exercise the right to demand the purchase of the instant land against the Plaintiff, taking full account of the overall purport of pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 11 and 12.