Whether a lessee’s right to purchase a ground building for the purpose of owning a building extends to a person who acquired the land from the lessor after the lease contract is terminated (affirmative)

A even if a lease contract for the land was not established between B and C at the time of acquiring the land, if B entered into a lease contract between B and B for the purpose of owning the building, but it was possible to exercise the right to demand purchase of the building against B as the contract was terminated, B may exercise the right to demand purchase against B, who is the acquisitor of the land.

Articles 283, 622(1), and 643 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da348 delivered on April 26, 197 (Gong1977, 10038) Supreme Court Decision 93Da59717, 52724 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2233)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Young-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Jeollabuk-do et al. and 12 others (Defendant 1's attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 94Na6447 delivered on February 8, 1996

The part of the lower judgment regarding Defendant Jeollabuk-do, Defendant 9, and Defendant 13 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the collegiate division of the Jeonju District Court. All appeals by Defendant Banan-gun, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, ○ Hospital Maintenance Foundation, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12 are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the said Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Bananan-gun, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, ○○ Hospital Maintenance Foundation, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12

The above Defendants paid rent by leasing each lot from the non-party Manpo Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1") or Defendant Haan-gun, which is the former owner of the land of this case, and constructed each of the buildings of this case with legitimate construction permission. Even if the property tax was paid, unless the lease contract has opposing power against the third party, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff. Thus, the above reasons do not constitute justifiable grounds for refusing the plaintiff's request for removal of this case, and the plaintiff's claim of this case does not constitute abuse of rights.

The court below is just and there is no violation of law as to the theory of lawsuit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Jeollabuk-do, Defendant 9, and Defendant 13

According to the above evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, and 11-4, 8, and 9, Defendant Jeollabuk-do concluded a lease agreement with the above 3-party 6-2 on the non-party 1-6-party 3-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 3-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 3-party 6-party 6-party 6-party 1-party 3-party 6-party 1-party 3-party 6-party 1-party 9-party 1-party 9-party 9-party 1-party 3-party 9-party 1-party 1-party 3-party 1-party 3-party 9-party 1-party 1-party 9.

However, although the above Defendants did not have concluded a lease contract with the non-party company, they were submitted to the non-party company, the ○○ Hospital Maintenance Foundation and the defendant 3 concluded a lease contract with the non-party company and paid the fees every year (record 125-128, 175-185, 320-31), according to the records, the non-party company was issued a favorable judgment by filing a claim for land use fee against the non-party company, the ○○ Hospital Maintenance Foundation and the co-defendant 10 of the court below, the Jeonju District Court's 82 Ghana branch court's 82da branch court's 86, and the non-party company did not submit a claim for land use fee against the non-party company and the non-party 10. The court below rejected the defendant company's allegation that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 5's claim for land use fee for the purpose of this case's claim for land use fee.

Although the court below did not proceed further, there is no evidence to support the fact that the above Defendants concluded the above lease agreement with the non-party company, and rejected the defendants' assertion to exercise their right to purchase each of the buildings of this case. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding Defendant Jeollabuk-do, Defendant 9, and Defendant 13 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining Defendants’ appeals are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)