A. The scope and criteria of “affiliateds” subject to a lessee’s request for purchase, and whether the attached articles are “affiliateds” if they are attached solely for the special purpose of a lessee (negative)

(b) The case holding that the facilities used in the public register among the five-story buildings have resulted in objective convenience in the use of buildings, while running a public restaurant by leasing the first and second floors whose restaurants are restaurants;

A. Article 646 of the Civil Act provides that "Accessories attached to a building lessee which are subject to the right to demand purchase shall belong to the lessee's ownership of things attached to the building and shall not constitute a constituent part of the building, which may give objective convenience to the use of the building. Thus, if the attached things are attached solely for the special purpose of the lessee, they cannot be subject to the right to demand the attached things. However, the objective purpose of use of the building shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the purpose of use agreed between the parties at the time of the formation of the building and lease contract, location of the building, surrounding environment, etc.

(b) The case holding that, among the five-story buildings, the facilities for the convenience of restaurant business operated by public restaurants by leasing the first and second floors whose registered use is a restaurant, will bring about objective convenience in the use of the building;

Article 646 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Da50,51 decided Jun. 7, 197 (Gong1977, 10153) 81Da1001 decided Jan. 19, 1982 (Gong1982, 261) 91Da8029 decided Oct. 8, 1991 (Gong191, 2682)

Plaintiff 5, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na10434 delivered on August 21, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that: (a) as of December 1983, 1983, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff to allow the plaintiff to engage in funeral services at any time until the plaintiff left the building; (b) as the plaintiff started to return properly to the defendant's business unlike the above promise, the plaintiff's refusal to renew the contract and the plaintiff's request for explanation can not be allowed because it violates the principle of good faith or because it constitutes abuse of rights; (c) as of December 1, 1983, Eul evidence No. 1, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff committed the above promise, is hard to believe it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

In light of the records, the above recognition of the court below seems to be justifiable, and the court below is the purport of rejecting the testimony of the non-party by the non-party witness who corresponds to the above defendant's argument, so it is groundless

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with the consent of the plaintiff, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the defendant exercised the right to purchase attached facilities for the objective convenience of the building, since the defendant's interior decorations, kitchens, toilets, electric installations and other facilities installed in the building part of this case with the consent of the plaintiff, and the defendant's right to purchase attached facilities for the purpose of the objective convenience of the use of the building because the attached facilities belonging to the lessee and do not belong to the lessee's ownership of the attached facilities and are not the constituent parts of the building. The defendant's alleged facilities are independent or completely independent of the building, or are used solely for the special purpose of the lessee, and they cannot be viewed as attached facilities subject to the above right to purchase.

Article 646 of the Civil Act provides that "Accessories attached to a building lessee which are the object of the right to demand purchase shall belong to the lessee's ownership as objects attached to the building, and shall not belong to the constituent parts of the building and which may give objective convenience to the use of the building. Thus, if the attached articles are attached solely for the special purpose of a lessee, they cannot be the object of the right to demand purchase of the attached articles. In this case, the objective purpose of use of the building shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the purpose of use agreed between the parties at the time of the formation and lease of the building, location of the building, surrounding environment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da50,51, Jun. 7, 197; Supreme Court Decision 91Da8029, Oct. 8, 1991).

In light of the records, the whole building of this case is a 1st underground floor and the 12nd underground floor as well as the 5th underground floor leased by the defendant as the 1st underground floor and the 1st and the 2nd underground floor as well as the 1st and the 5th underground floor, and its use is a public restaurant. According to the testimony of the non-party witness of the court below and the result of the on-site inspection of the first instance court, the part of the building of this case leased by the defendant is limited to the basic facilities such as the original waterworks, sewerage, toilets, electricity distribution, etc., and it is recognized that the defendant installed various facilities such as the plaintiff's lease to use it as a restaurant, and the restaurant attached to the 000gras. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to view that the objective purpose of use of the building of this case is a public restaurant.

Therefore, the defendant's convenience in restaurant business among various facilities is to bring about objective convenience in the use of the building of this case. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and decided on which the part of the various facilities asserted by the defendant can be viewed as a accessory to which the right to purchase is the object of the right to purchase, and judged the propriety of the defendant's principal. However, the court below held that the facilities alleged by the defendant are not an objective convenience in the use of the building in the purport that all of the facilities of the defendant's assertion are to be used solely for the special purpose of the defendant's use of the restaurant business. Therefore, the court below's

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.