The case holding that Article 643 and 652 of the Civil Act concerning the protection of lessees is not applicable.

If the Defendant agreed to transfer the land owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for a certain period, and if the Defendant fails to repurchase the land by the expiration date of the lease term, the Defendant cannot accept the right to purchase a building under Article 643 of the Civil Act, and Article 652 of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the Defendant.

Articles 652 and 643 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na942 delivered on August 25, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

The theory of lawsuit does not appear to the purport to criticize the original judgment by citing evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court. However, even if the original judgment was examined by the record, the lower court did not err by the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misapprehending the legal principles due to insufficient deliberation, etc.

On the second ground for appeal

In accordance with Articles 643 and 652 of the Civil Act, if the lease term expires in the lease of land, the lessee may exercise the right to demand the purchase of the building on the land and it is not effective to be disadvantageous to the lessee as an agreement in violation of this provision. However, as in this case, the above provision shall be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, since the plaintiff and the defendant were originally owned by the plaintiff, and the land in excess of the ownership in the future was leased and used for one year, but the defendant may repurchase the land from the plaintiff by paying 29.5 million won to the plaintiff by the expiration date of the lease term. However, if the defendant fails to repurchase by the expiration date of the above lease term, the defendant may not be applied to the case where the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to remove the previous building on the land and deliver the land to the plaintiff. Therefore, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course.

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

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)