[1] The purpose of Article 622 (1) of the Civil Code, which provides for the opposing power of the land lease registered as a building

[2] Whether a lessee’s right to claim the purchase of a building is recognized even when a lessee’s land lease contract is terminated due to the lessee’s nonperformance (negative)

[1] Article 622(1) of the Civil Act provides that even if the lease of land for the purpose of owning a building is not registered, if the lessee has registered the building on the ground, the effect of the lease may be asserted against the third party who has acquired the right to the land, and it does not provide that the person who has acquired the right to lease of land for the purpose of owning the building from the lessee, along with the ownership of the building, may oppose the acquisition of the right to lease even without his consent on the transfer of the right to lease, in relation to the lessor of the land.

[2] In the case of a land lease, where the lease contract is terminated due to nonperformance such as delayed rent of the land lessee, etc., the land lessee may not request the land lessor to purchase the land building.

[1] Article 622(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 283 and 643 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 66Da1224 delivered on September 27, 1966 (No. 14-3, 101), Supreme Court Decision 67Da2126 delivered on July 31, 1968 (No. 16-2, 331), Supreme Court Decision 92Da24950 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993, 1379) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da7245, 7252 delivered on January 23, 199 (Gong190, 513), Supreme Court Decision 90Da19695 delivered on April 23, 191 (Gong191, 1464), Supreme Court Decision 190Da196434 delivered on April 14, 1994 (Gong1964).

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Jung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na6612 delivered on May 25, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the above Defendants were in arrears for more than two years since April 1, 1985, and that the above Defendants were in excess of their demand for payment of rent after April 1, 1985, and that the lease contract relation was established as to the part of the site of this case for the above Defendants’ building, and the time of payment was set as the last day of each month. However, with respect to rent before March 31, 1985, the above Defendants were in arrears for more than one to five years. The court below found that the above Defendants were in excess of two years since April 1, 1985, and that the above Defendants did not demand payment of rent excessively after April 1, 1985, but it cannot be recognized that the above Defendants did not receive it even if they were in excess of a considerable amount or that it did not receive it, since it did not affect the previous facts-finding or new construction of the building, it cannot be viewed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence newly established or new construction of evidence.

The Second Ground of Appeal

Article 622(1) of the Civil Act merely provides that even in a case where a lessee has not registered a building on the ground, a third party who acquired a right to the land may assert the validity of the lease if the lessee has registered the building on the ground. It cannot be deemed that the provision of Article 622(1) provides that a person who acquired a right to lease of the land for the purpose of owning the building with the ownership of the building may oppose the acquisition of the right to lease without his/her consent in relation to the lessor of the land (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da24950, Apr. 13, 1993; 74Da212, May 28, 1974; 74Da2032, Jul. 30, 1975, etc.).

The decision of the court below to the same purport does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 622(1) of the Civil Act, such as the paper of argument. There is no reason to

As to the third ground for appeal

A number of buildings connected to one another on the same land have been constructed, and the owners of the buildings have consulted on the rent or the purchase of the land with each other in response to their subsidization. Among them, the implied lease relationship between some owners of the buildings and the owners of the land is established, and such reason alone cannot be deemed to establish an implied lease relationship between the owners of another building and the owners of the land. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff acknowledged that an implied lease relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 had not been paid any rent, it cannot be said that there was any error of law in the lower court’s misapprehension of legal principles against the owners of the land, on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid a rent by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1.

As to the fourth ground for appeal

In the case of land lease, if the lease contract is terminated due to default such as delayed rent of the land lessee, the land lessee cannot request the land lessor to purchase the building on the ground, and the decision of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to demand purchase.

As to the fifth ground for appeal

We affirm the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim of this case violates the principle of good faith or constitutes abuse of rights, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the principle of good faith or the principle of abuse of rights. All arguments are without merit.

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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)