The case holding that if the lessor of a building agreed not to file a claim for facility expenses, necessary expenses, premium, etc. for the appurtenances with the lessee instead of giving the lessor a low lease deposit and rent, and the lessee or transferee agreed not to claim facility expenses, etc., the lessee or transferee may waive the right to demand purchase and the said agreement cannot be deemed as unilaterally disadvantageous to the lessee.

The case holding that in case where Gap, when he leases the building part to Eul, caused the lease deposit and rent to be higher than the market price and instead Eul agreed not to claim all the facility expenses, necessary expenses, beneficial expenses, premium, etc. for the appurtenances installed by him at the time of the termination of the lease, and Byung, etc. agreed not to claim all the facility expenses, etc. when he takes over the above lease right from Eul, Eul, etc., and the above agreement cannot be deemed to be unilaterally disadvantageous to the lessee.

Articles 646 and 652 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 1001 decided Jan. 19, 1982 (Gong1982, 260)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na8334, 91Na3841 decided May 21, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below in light of the records, which determined that when the plaintiff leases the building part of this case to the non-party 1, he would make the lease deposit and rent be at a price lower than the market price, and instead, the non-party 1 agreed not to claim all of the facility expenses, other necessary expenses, beneficial expenses, and premium, etc. for the appurtenances installed at the time of the termination of the lease, and that the non-party 2 and the defendants agreed not to claim all of the above facility expenses, etc. against the plaintiff when he takes over the lease right from the non-party 1. Accordingly, the above non-party or the defendants renounced the right to purchase of this case, and that the above agreement cannot be deemed to be unilaterally disadvantageous to the lessee, and thus, the court below did not accept the defendants' exercise of the right to purchase the purchase of this case. In

In addition, it is merely a assumptive judgment that the accessory in the judgment of the court below cannot be the object of the right to purchase.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-young-ho Park Young-ho and Kim Young-ju