건물철거 등
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court’s determination that the lease contract on the instant land was lawfully terminated due to the Defendants’ delinquency in payment on the grounds stated in its reasoning is acceptable.
In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding
2. According to the records as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the court below asserted that, in the preparatory brief dated January 21, 2013, Defendant A and the Korea Exchange Bank alleged to the effect that “it is not acknowledged that there was a lease relationship between Defendant A and the Korea Exchange Bank on the instant land according to the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, Defendant A acquired a statutory superficies under customary law for owning the instant building.” However, once the court below determined that there was a lease relationship on the instant land between Defendant A and the Korea Exchange Bank, it cannot be said that there was an error of omission of judgment on the ground that it did not determine whether there was a legal superficies under customary law, which was merely a preliminary assertion.
Furthermore, in cases where there is an agreement between the parties as to the occupation and use of land, there is no reason to recognize legal superficies under customary law (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41771, 41788, Feb. 15, 2008). As long as there is a lease relationship as to the occupation and use of the land of this case, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have acquired legal superficies under customary law.
This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
On the other hand, the reasoning of the judgment below and the record.