Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the implied renewal of the lease;

If the lessor requests the removal of the leased building and the specification of the site as a lawsuit, it would not be possible to recognize the implied renewal from the beginning, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 639 of the Civil Act

Countries

Defendant

Masan Support in the first instance, Daegu High Court Decision 65Na784 delivered on October 7, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

With respect to the third ground for appeal by the plaintiff ○○○○

According to the explanation of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party leased the site of November 1, 1952 from the plaintiff by setting the lease term of one year, and the plaintiff approved the defendant to use the site of this case as the content of the contract with the above non-party, and the rent has been collected until March 31, 1965, and the above lease contract has reached the present point because it has an implied renewal at each expiration of the lease term.

However, even if it is recognized that the lease contract of this site was in existence by implied renewal until November 1, 1965, the plaintiff at the time of November 1, 1965 requested the removal of the main building and the evacuation of the main building site as the main lawsuit, and it is not possible to recognize the implied renewal thereafter, barring any special circumstance, the original judgment that recognized the implied renewal thereafter is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the implied renewal of the lease. Therefore, the appeal on this point is justified and the decision on other points is not required.

Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.