Where a land lease contract is terminated due to the rent delay of a lessee, whether a claim for purchase of a ground building has occurred

When a lease contract is terminated by a lessee's delay in the lease of land for the purpose of owning a building, the right to purchase the ground building shall not occur to the lessee.

Article 643 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea Electric Power Corporation’s Attorney

Defendant-Appellant Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92Na3919 delivered on July 2, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on August 21, 1989, the court below acknowledged that the defendant concluded a lease contract with the term of lease from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1990 with regard to each site of each building of this case among the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case among the land No. 1 and 2 of this case, with the term of lease from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1990, and possessed the above site at the time when the court below held that the removal of each building of this case and the plaintiff's main claim seeking the delivery of the site of this case are based on the expiration of the above lease term, on the premise that the above lease contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff for the removal of each building of this case and the transfer of the site of this case is terminated due to the expiration of the above lease term. However, according to related evidence, the defendant can be recognized that each building of this case is still existing even after the expiration of the lease term, and thus rejected the plaintiff's claim.

However, according to the records, when the plaintiff seeks removal of each of the buildings of this case and delivery of the building site of this case to the defendant, as originally assumed by the court below, the plaintiff filed a claim for purchase of the building of this case with the plaintiff by asserting that the term of the above lease was expired implicitly after the expiration of the term of the above lease, and that the above lease was renewed implicitly after the expiration of the term of the five pleadings of the court below, while the defendant did not pay two or more rents, the above lease was terminated on the ground that the above lease was delayed, and thereby, it was clearly changed in the previous claim by stating the change of the main claim and the claim for the removal of the building of this case as of April 16, 1993 and the addition of the conjunctive claim. Thus, in the lease of land for the purpose of ownership of the building of this case, if the lease was terminated by the rent of the tenant, the right to purchase the building of this case should not occur, and therefore, the court below should have accepted the plaintiff's claim for purchase as to the above changed cause of the plaintiff's main claim.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)