1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to the addition as follows.

“The Defendant asserts that the instant lease contract has not been terminated because there was no express declaration of intention to terminate the contract in the instant complaint. However, when comprehensively considering the purport of the instant complaint and the description of the cause of the claim stated in the instant complaint, the Plaintiff is deemed to have included an indication of intention to terminate the lease based on the annual rent system of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. The Defendant asserts that the right to purchase the attached object stipulated under Article 646 of the Civil Act should be recognized regardless of the cause of termination of the lease. However, in the event the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee’s nonperformance of obligation, the lessee cannot exercise the right to purchase the attached object under Article 646 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Da7245, Jan. 23, 1990; 2005Da8644, Apr. 28, 2005; 2013Da7529, Aug. 13, 2015).

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.