(a) Cases holding that a lease without a term agreed upon is implicitly concluded;

(b) Whether it is impossible for a lessor to give notice of termination as long as the building exists on the ground of an implied lease agreement with the agreed time limit;

(c) Whether or not the lessee of a building who has failed to pay rent may exercise his right to demand purchase under Article 643 of the Civil Act;

A. In a case where the owner of a building site receives the rent from the owner of the building on the ground and permits the possession and use of the building site, the lease contract for the site without any agreement of the time is established implicitly.

B. A lessee who fails to pay two or more times of rent and delays the right to demand purchase under this Article may not be exercised.

Article 643 of the Civil Act

62Da496 delivered on October 11, 1962

Plaintiff

Defendant (Appellee-Appellant)

Defendant (Appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 67Na324 delivered on July 13, 1968

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the Plaintiff’s appeal is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the Defendants’ appeal is assessed against each of the Defendants.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the evidences of this case, the defendant (Appellee and appellant) purchased the main building on the land owned by the plaintiff from the non-party to purchase it from the non-party, and, in order to own the building, it is recognized that the plaintiff possessed the land entered in the order owned by the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid 1 mar of rice 1 for one year from the rent of the land required by the plaintiff to the part of 1966, there is no violation of documentary evidence in its fact-finding. Therefore, there is no express lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, but there was no explicit lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, since the plaintiff demanded that the plaintiff be the car, and the plaintiff accepted it, and allowed the defendant to occupy and use the main building site for the purpose of owning the building, the court below's decision that the lease contract for the use of the main building site for the purpose of owning

In addition, in recognition of the price at the time of 1967.12 of the building owned by the defendant (Appellee) and the building on which the original judgment was based, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment violated the rules of evidence on the ground that it rejected the appraisal results by the Kial and the Bank Board and adopted the appraisal results by the appraiser who takes the duduc as well as the duction.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the defendant (Appellee-Appellant)

According to the reasoning of the judgment in the judgment of the court below, as seen in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney, the lease contract on the land in this case owned by the plaintiff for the ownership of the building owned by the defendant is not expressly established between the original defendant and the original defendant, and the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay and receive the fees, and allowed the defendant to use the land occupation. Thus, the lease contract in this case is not implicitly established by allowing the defendant to use the land occupation. Therefore, in this case where special circumstances exist, the plaintiff can be viewed as having no agreement of the term, and therefore, the plaintiff can not be viewed as having given notice of termination pursuant to Article 635 of the Civil Code, and as long as the building exists, it cannot be said that the plaintiff cannot be given notice of termination. Furthermore, in recognizing the market price as of December 12, 1967 of this case, since the judgment of the court below is adopting the appraisal result by the appraiser who is the highest as used by the defendant's representative for the benefit of the defendant among

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (Appellant)

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, as seen in the judgment on the ground of appeal by the defendant (Appellee and Appellant), the lease contract on the land owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of the building owned by the defendant is not explicitly established between the original defendant and it is not implicitly established, and in this case where remote circumstances do not peep into peep, the lease contract can be concluded without an agreement on the term of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff can notify the termination in accordance with Article 635 of the Civil Act. Thus, there is no ground for objection. Further, according to the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that the original judgment was the date on which the defendant purchased the building owned by the non-party, which is the ownership of the non-party, is the misunderstanding of January 20, 1958, and therefore, the argument disputing the original judgment is groundless. Moreover, since the plaintiff's notice of termination of the lease and the defendant's possession of the building site is legitimate, the plaintiff's claim for removal and delivery of the building site can not be viewed from 26.

4. The appeal is without merit, and all costs of the lawsuit are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kimchi-bak (Presiding Justice)