If the lessor has already lost the ownership of the land at the time of termination of the right of lease, whether to exercise the right of purchase;

In principle, the other party to the claim for purchase of a building by a lessee of land for the purpose of owning a building is a lessor, who is the landowner at the time of termination of the right of lease. If the lessor has already lost the ownership at the time of termination of the right of lease, he/she may not exercise the right to purchase the ground building. This does not change by arbitrarily disposing of the land

Articles 643 and 283 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Intervenor (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and one other

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na608, 93Na26655 delivered on October 27, 1993 (Counterclaim)

The appeal is dismissed.

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In principle, the other party to the claim for purchase of a building by a lessee of land, the object of which is the ownership of the building, shall be a lessor, who is the owner of the land at the time of termination of the lease (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da348, Apr. 26, 197). If the lessor has already lost the ownership of the building at the time of termination of the lease, he cannot exercise the claim for purchase of the building, and such restriction does not change by the lessor who has arbitrarily disposed of the land before termination of the lease contract. According to the facts recognized by the court below, the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff") filed a lawsuit for removal of the building of this case on May 16, 192, and the plaintiff (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant") had no error of law as to the cancellation of the lease contract of this case from June 4, 1992 to December 4, 199, which had already been rejected by the court below as to the plaintiff's right to purchase the building of this case as well as the date of pleading.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)