In a case where a lessee exercises the right to demand purchase of a ground object under Article 643 of the Civil Act, whether the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment for the use of the site before the lessor pays the purchase price (affirmative)

In the case of land lease for the purpose of owning a building or other structure, the lessee may refuse to deliver the above ground building, etc. after exercising the right to demand purchase under Article 643 of the Civil Act with respect to the above ground building, etc. until he receives the purchase price from the lessor, but as long as the land continues to be occupied and used through the occupation and use of the above ground building, etc., the lessee has the obligation to return the amount equivalent to the rent of

Articles 643 and 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Yellow Smoke et al. and three others

Dongnam Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na31107 delivered on February 22, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above part of 1,135 square meters of 527 m27 m2 on the 3th anniversary of the above 10th m27 m2 and the above part of 10th m2 of the 10th m2 of the 3th m3th m2 of the 19th m2 and the above 10th m2 of the 1st m27th m2 of the 19th m27th m2 of the 19th m27th m2 of the 196th m2 of the 19th m27th m2 of the 196th m27th m2 of the 196th m2 of the 1st m27th m27th m2 of the 196th m27th m2 of the 196th m2 of the building.

2. In the case of land lease for the purpose of owning a building or any other structure, even if the lessee may refuse to deliver the above ground building, etc. after exercising the purchase right under Article 643 of the Civil Act with respect to such ground building, etc. and then receiving the purchase price from the lessor, the lessee is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of the site as unjust enrichment resulting from the continued possession and use of the site through the occupancy and use of the above ground building, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da22114 delivered on December 24, 1992).

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of unjust enrichment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is not acceptable.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)