(a) Accessories subject to the request for purchase by the building lessee;

(b) A precedent that violates Article 646 of the Civil Act and is not an agreement unfavorable to the lessee;

(a) An accessory to a building lessee’s claim for purchase is limited to an object attached to the building itself, which brings objective convenience to the use of the building among objects owned by the lessee that do not constitute a constituent part of the building. Therefore, a accessory to an extension that is separate from the existing building and cannot be an object of independent ownership or to be owned by the lessor cannot be the object of the claim for purchase;

B. In the event that the Defendants, a lessee of a building, waives the right to purchase the appurtenant facilities and appurtenant facilities and, as a result of the termination of the lease, have come to know of the deposit and monthly rent of the lease contract, and the lease term is set at a long time, and the lessor wishes to remove the leased building immediately after the termination of the lease contract and build a new building on the site. If the lessee was aware of such circumstances from the lease date, the special agreement that the lessee’s ownership of appurtenant facilities belongs to the lessor is different from the agreement that the lessor would exclude the right to purchase the appurtenant facilities, or that the lessee would belong to the lessor’s ownership without compensation.

A. Article 646(b) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da50,51 Delivered on June 7, 1977

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na1367 delivered on July 1, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in a case where the above part of the building which was owned by the plaintiff is leased to another party as its original condition, the court below decided that the above part of the building was owned by the plaintiff, and that the above part of the building was owned by the plaintiff and its accessory facilities should be interpreted as invalid for a period of 10,00,000, monthly rent, and that the above part of the building was not owned by the plaintiff and its accessory facilities, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tenant's right to purchase the building under the premise that the above part of the building was not owned by the plaintiff's new building and its accessory facilities would be owned by the plaintiff and thus, it would be unreasonable for the court below to view that the above part of the building was not owned by the tenant and its accessory facilities to be owned by the plaintiff, and that the above part of the building was not owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of new construction of the building and its accessory facilities to be purchased under the premise that the above part would be owned by the plaintiff.

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 judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)