Cases where the possession of a building is recognized as a legitimate exercise of a lien;

A person who has moved into a completed building by paying a deposit for lease on a deposit basis and thereafter has agreed between the owner and the owner to purchase the building at his/her own expense may exercise the right of retention against the third purchaser of the building until he/she receives repayment equivalent to the amount of the building's money.

Article 320 of the Civil Act, Article 325 of the Civil Act

Kim Jin-hun et al.

Sheet only in order

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na615 delivered on September 19, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na615 delivered on September 19, 1966

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ agent’ grounds of appeal.

(1) From 2 points to 2 for convenience, the lower court deemed as follows. In other words, this building (Seoul Dongdaemun-gu) is originally owned by the Nonparty’s limited arms. When the Nonparty constructed the building, it was leased to the Defendant KRW 250,000 on a deposit basis without completing only the foundation work, the wall installation work, and the roof construction, and without performing the construction on the remainder. The Defendant included the above building in its lease as well as the market adjoining thereto, and concluded with the above limited arms to purchase the building, and completed the remaining part of the building with its own money, and thus, it would be reasonable for the Defendant to lawfully acquire the remainder of the above building from the Plaintiff’s possessor of the building and claim for the remainder of the remainder of this building until the payment period for the remainder of this building would have been 507,00,000,000 won. Accordingly, the Defendant would not have any influence on the Defendant’s sale and purchase of the building.

Thus, if the defendant's possession of the building is based on the lien, it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed a tort against the plaintiffs even though the defendant refused to comply with the plaintiffs' request for evacuation. In other words, even though the plaintiffs sold the building to a third party, but failed to perform their duty to explain within the agreed date, it cannot be said that such damage was caused by the defendant's failure to occupy the building unfairly and deliver it.

(2) As to the first ground of appeal, the theory is developed on the premise that the judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the defendant's illegal act against the defendant's reputation and the damages caused by the plaintiff et al. are recognized as a result of the 65,000 won of the damage caused by the plaintiff et al., but it is not the purport of the original judgment after reading the original judgment, but the purport of the original judgment is not that of the defendant's failure to act, and whether the defendant's failure to act constitutes the defendant's responsibility or not is a separate issue, and the latter part of the judgment of the court below denies it from the latter part of the judgment of the court

Next, as determined in the above (1) above, if the possession of the defendant's main building is less than a juristic person due to the exercise of the right of retention, the failure to comply with the order of the defendant's main building cannot constitute a tort against the plaintiffs who are the present owner. Therefore, even if the court below erred by viewing the situation that the plaintiffs sold the building to a third party as a special circumstance (as to the scope of compensation for damages), it is not possible to affect the judgment of the court below. This is without merit in this point.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and all costs of appeal are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)