beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows: “The date from July 1, 2019 to the date on which the delivery of the instant land is completed” under the first instance judgment 6 pages 1 of the first instance judgment; and the Defendants’ assertion added in the first instance judgment to the following additional determination is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Supplementary Part of Judgment】
A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion was that G Co., Ltd., the former owner of the instant building (hereinafter “G”), owned the right to lease the instant land for the purpose of owning the instant building. The Defendants succeeded to the right to lease of the instant land from G with the consent of the lessor, and thus, may oppose the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 622(1) of the Civil Act.
B. Determination 1) Article 622(1) of the Civil Act provides that even if the land lease for the purpose of owning a building is not registered, the lease becomes effective against the third party when the lessee has registered the building. Based on the above provision, in order for the Defendants to oppose the Plaintiffs, the land owner of the instant building, based on the foregoing provision, the Defendants must prove that there was a right of lease for the purpose of owning the instant building, and that the Defendants lawfully acquired the right of lease. However, there is insufficient reason to acknowledge that the Defendants had the right of lease. In full view of the circumstances and evidence submitted by the Defendants, the following reasons is insufficient: (a) The former owner of the instant land was H; (b) the former owner of the instant building was G who was the representative of H; and H was the owner of the instant building on April 18, 2016, Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Du1821, Feb. 1, 2016.