(b) The case holding that the waiver agreement of the right to purchase a building does not necessarily be disadvantageous to the lessee, considering the circumstances and circumstances of conclusion of the lease contract, such as the fact that the lessee was in form but has succeeded to the status of the former lessee who is practically unable to exercise the right to purchase

B. The case holding that since Party A, a former lessee, transferred the right of lease to Party B without permission and the termination of the lease agreement, there was no room for asserting the right to purchase the building at the time of the termination of the lease agreement, and the lessor was obligated to remove the building on the ground and return the leased land to the lessor upon the expiration of the lease agreement, accepting Party B’s request and entering into a lease agreement with Party B for a three-year period between Party B and Party B, and allowing the lessor to waive the right to the ground building at the time of the expiration of the lease term, the lessor was granted a grace period for three years for the benefit of the removal of the building that he was trying to exercise at the time of the termination of the lease agreement with the former lessee, and allowing the lessee to use and benefit from the leased land more during that period. However, even though the new lessee was succeeded to the status of the former lessee who is practically unable to exercise the right to purchase, the waiver agreement of the right to purchase the building is not necessarily disadvantageous to the lessee.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Since the provision of Article 643 of the Civil Act on the right to demand purchase of a lessee is a mandatory provision, it is invalid as an agreement in violation of this provision that is unfavorable to the lessee or the sub-lessee. Thus, whether it is an unfavorable agreement to the lessee, etc. should first be determined by the terms and conditions of the relevant contract itself, but if special circumstances can be acknowledged that it is not disadvantageous to the lessee, etc. in substance taking into account the process of concluding the contract and all other circumstances, it shall be deemed that the above mandatory provision does not conflict (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da1001, Jan. 19,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiffs leased the land of this case to the non-party who is the former lessee on September 1, 1981, the court below decided to remove the building of this case at the time of termination of the lease instead of setting the lease term for five years from the beginning. On July 1, 1986, the above lease contract was renewed until August 31, 1988, and specified as the special terms of the removal provision of the above building. However, the above non-party transferred the lease right to the above building to the defendant without the consent of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs terminated the above lease contract and demanded the defendant to remove the building of this case and deliver the site. Thus, the defendant would be able to continue to use the above land only for three years under the same conditions as the lease contract concluded between the above non-party and the above non-party. Accordingly, when concluding the lease contract for three years between the defendant and the above, the above building belongs to the plaintiffs at the time of termination of the lease. Although the defendant extended part of the above building of this case, it constitutes an independent building.

According to the above facts, the non-party, who is the former lessee, transferred the right of lease to the defendant without permission and terminated the lease contract, and the defendant, as well as the above non-party, was no longer likely to assert the right to purchase the building at the time when the lease contract expires, and was liable to remove the building on the ground and return the leased land to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's act of entering into a lease contract with the defendant at the request of the defendant for a period of three years and giving up the right to the ground building at the time of the expiration of the lease term was suspended for three years for the benefit of the defendant, and the removal and delivery of the building that the plaintiff intended to exercise at the time of the termination of the lease with the former lessee, and made it possible for the plaintiff to use and benefit from the leased land for the benefit of the defendant. Thus, even though the

In full view of the details and overall circumstances of the conclusion of the lease agreement, it is difficult to view that the waiver agreement of the right to purchase the building of this case was disadvantageous to the defendant.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principle as alleged in the lawsuit, and the precedents cited in the lawsuit are different from the case, and thus it is not appropriate to be invoked in the case. The grounds for appeal are

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)