(a) In case of a land lease agreement, if a lessee removes a ground building after the expiration of the lease term and transfers the land, whether the agreement to transfer the ownership to the lessor is valid (negative)

(b) If the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee’s default, whether the lessee may exercise his/her right to demand purchase (negative)

(c) The case holding that, in case where the return of the leased object is sought due to the termination of the lease contract, the lessee cannot refuse such return on the ground that the leased object is not directly occupied;

A. The agreement between the lessor and the lessee to transfer the land by removing the ground building after the expiration of the lease term, if the lessee fails to remove the ground building, the agreement to transfer the ownership to the lessor is an agreement to exclude the lessee’s right to demand the purchase of the ground object as stipulated in Article 643 of the Civil Act, and is thus null and void pursuant to Article 652 of the Civil Act.

(b) Where a lessor terminates a lease due to a lessee's default, the lessee may not exercise his/her right to demand the purchase of ground;

C. In a case where a lessor seeks the return of the leased object as restitution upon termination of the lease contract, it is only the confession that the lessee is not a direct occupant, and the lessee may not refuse the return on the ground that the lessee did not directly possess the leased object, unless the purport of the confession was to be made by the indirect occupant.

a.B.Article 643(a) of the Civil Code, Article 652(c) of the Civil Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 72Da2013 decided Dec. 26, 1972 (No. 203Du228) (Gong1990, 513) (Gong190, 513). Supreme Court Decision 81Da187 decided May 10, 1983 (Gong1983, 960)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

For static purposes

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na10898 delivered on November 7, 1990

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs regarding the claim for delivery of the remaining part of the site except for the part on the building site for port indication 1. A, shall be reversed and remanded to Seoul High Court

The remaining appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this case are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the land of this case for the purpose of owning the building on the land of this case, and the defendant newly constructed the building on the land of this case and thereafter requested the renewal of the lease agreement to the plaintiffs one month prior to the expiration of the above lease term. However, the plaintiffs refused it, and rejected the removal of the building of this case and the request for delivery of the land of this case on the ground that the transaction relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was formed with respect to the building of this case upon the defendant's exercise of the defendant's purchase right. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment is just and there is no error of law

After the expiration of the lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant delivered the land of this case to the plaintiff and delivered the land of this case to the plaintiff, and if the above land is not removed, the defendant did not have the right to purchase the building of this case. However, the above special agreement is an agreement to exclude the tenant's right to purchase the ground property under Article 643 of the Civil Code and is disadvantageous to the lessee. Thus, the above special agreement is null and void in accordance with Article 652 of the Civil Code, and the precedents cited in the arguments are not appropriate precedents in this case.

In addition, if a lessor terminates a lease contract on the grounds of a lessee's default, the lessee cannot exercise the right to demand the purchase of the ground. However, according to the records, it is clear that the notification of termination of the lease by the plaintiffs was made on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term, and it cannot be said that the exercise of the defendant's right to demand the ground object violates the principle of trust and good faith or the transactional norms on the sole basis

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the request for extradition against the defendant who does not possess the above portion of the site of this case is unfair, since the plaintiffs led to the confession that the defendant does not directly possess the remaining part of the building site of this case except for the above building site of this case, and thereafter revoked the confession, but there is no evidence that the confession does not go against the truth.

However, according to the records (see the fourth oral argument in the first instance court), the plaintiffs only led to the confession that they are not direct occupants of the above site, and it is evident that they do not have the intention to make a confession even if they are not indirect occupants. Accordingly, according to the records of the complaint's claim, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' claim for the delivery of the site in this case includes the purport of seeking the return of the leased object as restitution upon termination of the lease contract. If the claim for the return of the leased object is made as such restitution, the defendant cannot refuse

The judgment of the court below did not clearly state the plaintiffs' title to the claim for the delivery of the site of this case and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the right to claim the return of leased property and the right to claim the return.

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs regarding the request for delivery of the remaining portion of the site except for the building site of this case shall be reversed and remanded, and the remaining appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal concerning this part of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party and it is so decided

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)