beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the defendant added the following judgments concerning the matters asserted in the trial of the court of first instance under the 3rd 10th 10th s of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court
【Supplementary part] Next, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant exercised the right to purchase the attached article against the instant scrap installed in the instant building with the Plaintiff’s consent, and that the amount should be offset or deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount because the cost of installing the instant scrap was eight million won.
Since an accessory to a building, which is subject to a claim for purchase under Article 646 of the Civil Act, is an object attached to the building itself, which brings an objective convenience to the use of the building among objects owned by the lessee not as a constituent part of the building, it does not fall under the case where the attached object is attached for the exclusive purpose of the lessee, and the objective purpose of use of the building is determined by considering all the circumstances such as the structure of the building itself and the purpose of use agreed between the parties at the time of the lease agreement, location
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da8029, Oct. 8, 1991). Meanwhile, when a lease contract is terminated due to a lessee’s nonperformance, the lessee is prohibited from exercising the right to require the purchase of ground objects and the right to purchase attached things.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7685 Decided April 22, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7245, Jan. 23, 1990, etc.). In full view of the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is recognized that the laund was installed to move the laund to the rooftop of the instant building, and that the laund was installed to move the laundry to the rooftop of the instant building. According to the above facts of recognition, the laund in this case is used for the Defendant’s special purpose.