A. In a case where a land lessee exercises his right of purchase pursuant to the provisions of Article 643 of the Civil Act for the purpose of owning a building, whether the duty of the land lessee’s name and the duty of ownership transfer registration and the duty of the land lessee’s payment of the price of the building are concurrently performed (affirmative)

B. The case holding that it is necessary for the court to seek a title of the grounds for objection in case where the court of first instance accepted the claim for purchase right under the above law as a land lessee and accepted the claim for the purchase right under the above law as a purchaser of the plaintiff who is a land lessee, and the defendant did not file an appeal but did not claim specific grounds for appeal

C. The case holding that, in the case of paragraph (b) above, where the defendant submitted an application for resumption of the pleading to the effect that the concurrent performance defense against the claim for the name of the building can be asserted, the court should have the opportunity to make a statement of the grounds for objection by resumption of the pleading (affirmative)

A. In a case where the legal relationship of the sale similar to that of a building at the market price has been established as a result of the exercise of the right to demand purchase by a land lessee pursuant to the provisions of Article 643 of the Civil Act, since the name map of the land lessee and the obligation of the registration of ownership transfer and the obligation of the land lessee to pay the price of the building is in a quid pro quo relationship, the land lessee is entitled to assert simultaneous performance with the payment

B. The plaintiff, who is a land lessee, filed a claim for the removal of the building owned by the defendant and the delivery of the site on the original leased land, but the defendant exercised the right to purchase the building, and the plaintiff changed the lawsuit to a request for evacuation of the above building on the ground that the sale of the building was constituted by the above right to purchase. If the judgment of the court of first instance accepted the defendant's request for purchase and accepted the plaintiff's request for the purchase right and appealed against the plaintiff's claim for the purchase right, the defendant's objection against the judgment of the first instance, which was the plaintiff's receipt of his request for purchase right, does not have any particular reason for dispute over the execution relation of the purchase right established by the exercise of the right to purchase. Therefore, if the defendant, who is not a legal expert, fails to present at the date for pleading and make a statement of reasonable grounds for objection as the plaintiff, the court

C. If, in the case of paragraph (b) above, the lower court did not take such measures, and later filed an application for resumption of pleadings with the Defendant, and presented the allegation to the purport of simultaneous performance pursuant to the claim for resumption of pleadings, the lower court should sufficiently deliberate by providing the Defendant with an opportunity to make a statement of the grounds for objection by resumption of pleadings.

(a) Articles 536, 643, and 283 of the Civil Act; Article 126(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 126 and 132 of the Civil Procedure Act

American Housing Corporation, Inc.

The Order of the Mentality;

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na25019 delivered on December 12, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the record, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the removal of the building owned by the Defendant and its transfer on the land of this case, which was constructed by the Plaintiff at the complaint, on the fifth day for pleading of the first instance trial, and exercised the right to purchase the building constructed on the leased land through the preparatory document dated January 8, 1990 stated by the Defendant on the fifth day for pleading of the first instance trial

On June 11, 1990, as an application for modification of the purport of the claim and cause of the building, the sale of the building above was established by the exercise of the above right to purchase, and accordingly, the court below changed the lawsuit to the request for clarification of the building above. Since there was a legal relationship similar to the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on February 10, 1990 at the time of termination of the lease by the defendant's exercise of the above right to purchase, the court below determined that the defendant has a duty to order the plaintiff to order the building of this case and ordered the defendant

2. In a case where the legal relationship of the sale similar to that of the land building at the market price has been established as a result of the exercise of the right to demand purchase by the land lessee pursuant to the provisions of Article 643 of the Civil Act, the obligation of the land lessee's name map and the obligation of the registration of ownership transfer and the obligation of the land lessee's payment of the price of the building is in a quid pro quo relationship. Therefore, the land lessee can

In light of the records, it is recognized that the first instance judgment accepted the defendant's claim for purchase and accepted the plaintiff's claim for the purchase name of the building as the purchaser, the defendant filed an appeal, and submitted an application for resumption of pleadings after becoming a partnership on the first day for pleading of the lower court without claiming any specific grounds for objection, and argued to the effect that it is improper to issue an order without paying the purchase price.

In the above case, the defendant's objection against the judgment of the court of first instance, which was the receipt of his principal's request for purchase, is without any specific reason, except for the dispute over the performance of the transaction established by the exercise of the request for purchase. Thus, if the defendant, who is not a legal expert, was present at the date of pleading and fails to state the reasonable grounds for objection, the court needs to seek a statement of the reasons for objection. If the defendant, who is not a legal expert, was unable to state the grounds for objection, then the court must take such measures, and if the defendant later submitted an application for resumption of pleading and submitted the application for resumption of pleading to the purport of simultaneous performance defense against the claim, the court below should have deliberated sufficiently by providing the defendant

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, and there is a ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)