[1] In a case where a lessor’s termination of a right to lease a parcel of land without a fixed period of time upon the lessor’s termination notice, whether to recognize a lessee’s claim for

[2] Whether a lessee can exercise the right to purchase a building by separate lawsuit after a lessee has lost the right to purchase the building without exercising the right to purchase the building in a lawsuit claiming the transfer of land and removal of the building filed by a lessor

[1] In the case of land lease the object of which is the ownership of a building, the right to demand the purchase of ground property by the land lessee is recognized notwithstanding the existence of the lessee's claim for renewal of the contract even if the right of lease is extinguished by the lessor's notice of termination for the lease without a fixed period

[2] In the case of a land lease the object of which is the ownership of a building, even if, upon the termination of the lease, the lessee of the land did not exercise his right to demand purchase of the building against the lessor despite the fact that the lessee could exercise his right to demand purchase of the building against the lessor, and the judgment of loss against the lessor in the lawsuit for delivery of the land and removal of the building became final and conclusive, insofar as the removal of the building has not been executed by the final and conclusive judgment, the lessee of the land may seek payment

[1] Articles 283 and 643 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 283 and 643 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Da34265 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2583) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 76Da2324 delivered on June 7, 197 (Gong197, 10151), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5178, 5185 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1157) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da37267 delivered on September 23, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2789)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Kim Byung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 95Na1386 delivered on August 24, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The court below held that the non-party's lease contract was terminated on November 29, 1991 and the non-party's above non-party 1's land owned by the defendant for the purpose of owning the building from the defendant around 1985. The non-party 1's lease contract was terminated by the non-party 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1985 to 1989's 13's 19's 4's 5's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 1's 1's 5''s 1's 9's 1's 1's 's 1's 's 's 's 's '6''''s ''''s 1''6'''''''''''''''.

(2) In the lease of land for the purpose of the ownership of a building, even though the lessee of land was able to exercise the right to purchase the building against the lessor upon the termination of the lease and the judgment against the lessor in the lawsuit for delivery of the land and removal of the building became final and conclusive, insofar as the removal of the building has not been executed by the final and conclusive judgment, the lessee of the land may seek payment of the purchase price of the building against the lessor by exercising the right to purchase the building. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. It is nothing more than an independent opinion that argues that the right to purchase the building has been extinguished by the final and conclusive judgment because the lawsuit for the claim for delivery of the land and the claim for the purchase price, which is the subsequent suit, are different in the subject matter of the lawsuit, and thus, the exercise of the right to purchase the building

All arguments are without merit.

(3) The court below rejected all the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' exercise of the right to purchase the building of this case constitutes abuse of rights or violation of the good faith principle, and that the plaintiffs implicitly renounced the right to purchase the building of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and there is no error of law such as theory

(4) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Don-hee (Presiding Justice)