[2] The case holding that it should be prudent when recognizing that the lease of a parcel of land or a building on land has been changed to a parcel of land for the purpose of owning a building

[2] The case holding that since the lease of a parcel of land and a building on its ground and the lease of a parcel of land for the purpose of owning a building are substantially different in the legal effect of the lease, such as whether the lessee's right to request renewal or the right to request purchase of a building at the end of the lease is recognized, and whether the lease of a parcel of land and a building on its ground is valid, it shall be careful when recognizing that the lease of a parcel of land

1. Based on evidence, the lower court: (a) concluded a new lease agreement with the Defendant on November 30, 201; (b) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the premise that the part of the instant building owned by the Defendant and the previous building were owned by KRW 2.5 million; (c) the end of each month; (d) one year from November 30, 201; and (e) renewed the lease agreement with the Defendant on the premise that the lease agreement was concluded for the purpose of KRW 16,17,19,16; (c) the part of the previous building owned by the Defendant on the premise that the building was destroyed by KRW 30,00,00,000 and KRW 13,00,000,000; and (d) the part of the instant building that was owned by the Defendant on the 5th,000,000 and KRW 2,000,000,000 from March 2, 200.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly confirm the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indicating, and it does not include only the language used. However, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating is to be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the language regardless of what the parties’ internal intent in mind. In the event that the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the party’s language, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense, and common sense and transaction norms so that it conforms to the ideology of social justice and equity, comprehensively takes into account the following factors: the form and content of the language; the motive and background leading up to the juristic act; the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the juristic act; and the transaction practices (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da3268, Mar. 25, 1994; 2000Da40858, Mar. 23, 2001).

In addition, since the lease of a parcel of land and a building on its ground and the ownership of a building are substantially different in the legal effect such as whether the lessee's right to request renewal or the right to request purchase of the building at the time of termination of the lease, and the validity of the reinstatement agreement, it should be careful to recognize that the lease of a parcel of land and a building on its ground has been changed to the lease for the purpose of ownership of a building.

However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the lease agreement (No. 1) dated November 30, 2001 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, stating that "the defendant may reconstruct or alter the factory under the plaintiff's approval, but shall restore the factory to its original state at the time of returning the factory, and return it to the original state," and the above stipulation was valid unless there are special circumstances. The above stipulation was entered into on August 31, 2004, after the construction of the building of this case, with the plaintiff and the defendant on August 31, 2004, and as the plaintiff expressed his intention to refuse the renewal of the lease of this case, it does not appear that the owner of the defendant representativeed on August 31, 2005, the expiration date of the lease of this case, prepared and delivered each letter of commitment that the tenant would not exercise all rights, such as the cost and ownership of the building to extend or rebuild the lease of this case.

다른 한편, 제1심에서의 감정결과에 의하면, 피고가 신축한 이 사건 건물 중 지상 1층은 ① 판넬조·철판지붕으로 된 세면실, 작업실, ② 판넬조·판넬지붕으로 된 도색실, 사무실, ③ 세멘벽돌조·철판지붕으로 된 창고, 화장실 및 작업실, ④ 경량철골조·철판지붕으로 된 작업실 등으로 구성되어 있고, 지상 2층은 ㉠ 판넬조·판넬지붕으로 된 휴게실, 사무실 및 도색실, ㉡ 판넬조·함석지붕으로 된 창고, ㉢ 쇠파이프조·판넬지붕으로 된 도색창고, ㉣ 쇠파이프조·천막 및 썬라이프지붕으로 된 작업실, ㉤ 컨테이너박스로 된 사무실, ㉥ 쇠파이프조·천막지붕으로 된 작업실, ㉦ 경량철골조·함석지붕으로 된 작업실, ㉧ 철판바닥으로 된 통로 등으로 구성되어 있음을 알 수 있는바, 이러한 이 사건 건물의 구조와 구성 등에 비추어 과연 이 사건 건물이 독립된 소유권의 객체가 되는 건물로서의 요건을 구비하였다고 쉽사리 단정하기도 어렵다고 할 것이다.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant lease agreement was for the purpose of owning a building or that the previous lease agreement was modified into a lease agreement for the purpose of owning a building without simply stating the reasons why the Defendant prepared a letter stating that the Plaintiff would not exercise all the authority over the instant building on the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the lease agreement.

Nevertheless, unlike this, on the premise that the lease contract of this case was modified to a lease for the purpose of owning a building, the defendant's right to purchase the building of this case was accepted, and all of the plaintiff's removal of the building of this case and the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the site delivery and rent shall be rejected, and the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of legal act or by misapprehending facts against the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)