Whether a lessee who purchased and occupies an unregistered unregistered building from the former lessee in a lease of land for the purpose of owning the building can exercise the right to purchase the ground object against the lessor (affirmative in principle)

In the lease of land for the purpose of owning a building as prescribed by Article 643 of the Civil Act, a lessee’s right to request the purchase of a building on the ground is to preserve the remaining value of the building from a national economic perspective and to protect lessee who has faithfully complied with the lease contract in a case where there is a building on the ground, even though the lease contract has been terminated, and thus, for the purpose of protecting lessee who is easy to sacrifice due to the exercise of exclusive ownership by the landowner, barring any special circumstance, the lessee’s right to request the purchase of a building may be the object of a lessee’s right to request the purchase of a building on the ground even if there is no legitimate building permitted by an administrative agency. Furthermore, even if the purchaser and occupant of the building did not have the title of registration, the lessee has the legal or de facto right to dispose of the building in possession within the scope of such right. In light of the purpose of the right to request the purchase of a building on the ground, and the legal status of the unregistered buyer, barring special circumstances.

Articles 186 and 643 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da228 delivered on February 28, 1967 (No. 15-1, 179), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5245 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1521), Supreme Court Decision 97Da37753 delivered on December 23, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 375)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Inul, Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

As shown in the attached list of the defendant.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Na11035, 2013Na587 Decided May 22, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is reasonable to find the existence of a land lease agreement between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) for the purpose of owning a building on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on a lease agreement, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In the case of a lease of land for the purpose of owning a building as prescribed by Article 643 of the Civil Act, a lessee’s right to demand the purchase of a building on the ground may, in the event that a building on the ground is existing even though a lease contract for the purpose of owning the building has been terminated, claim the purchase of the building on the ground in good faith from a national economic perspective the lessee who has faithfully observed the lease contract, to preserve the remaining value of the building on the ground from a national economic perspective, and to protect the lessee who is easily sacrificed due to the exercise of exclusive ownership by the landowner. Thus, barring any special circumstance, a lessee’s right to demand the purchase of a building on the ground may be subject to the lessee’s right to demand the purchase, even without a lawful building permitted by an administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision

In addition, even if a person who purchased and occupies a building has no registered title as an owner, he/she has the right to dispose of the building in his/her possession legally or de facto within the scope of such right (see Supreme Court Decisions 66Da2228, Feb. 28, 196; 95Da5245, Apr. 12, 196, etc.).

In light of the above purpose of the system for claiming purchase of ground property, the legal status of the unregistered buyer, etc., a lessee who purchased an unregistered building from the previous lessee is in a position to exercise the right to demand purchase of ground property against the lessor even if he/she did not acquire the ownership because he/she did not have a registered name as the owner, barring any special circumstances.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the Defendants owned each of the buildings of this case, and determined that each of the buildings of this case was concluded by exercising the Defendants’ right to purchase ground water.

According to the records, Defendant 2 may establish the fact that he built the instant building 2 and acquired the ownership thereof. However, Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 respectively purchased and possessed the instant building 1, 3, and 5, which are unregistered unregistered buildings from the previous lessees, and thus, they could have known the fact that he did not acquire the ownership of each of the above buildings. Thus, the judgment of the court below that Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 owned each of the above buildings is erroneous.

However, examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 did not acquire the ownership of each of the above buildings, it is possible to exercise the right to demand the purchase of the above buildings as a lessee, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the judgment of the court below that recognized the right to demand the purchase of the above buildings by Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding

3. Conclusion

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.

[Attachment] List of Defendant: omitted

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)