(a) When the lease term expires between a lessor and a lessee of land, the validity of an agreement whereby a lessee transfers or removes a ground building;

(b) A person entitled to exercise the right to demand a purchase of ground water under Article 643 of the Civil Act;

(c) A person entitled to exercise the right to demand purchase under Article 644 of the Civil Act;

A. An agreement between a landowner and a land lessee on the transfer or removal of a ground building at the expiration of the lease term is an agreement to exclude a lessee’s right to demand the purchase of a ground property under Article 643 of the Civil Act, and is unfavorable to the lessee, barring any special circumstance, and thus, it shall be deemed null and void under Article 652 of the Civil

(b) The right to demand the purchase of ground objects under Article 643 of the Civil Code may be exercised only by the owner of the ground objects.

C. Under Article 644 of the Civil Code, the lessee's right to lease and right to demand purchase are recognized only when the lessee legally subleases the land with the consent of the land lessor.

a.B. Article 643 of the Civil Code. Article 652(c) of the Civil Code. Article 644 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da19695 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1464) (Gong1992, 3112) 92Da22435 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3112) 93Da16130 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong193, 2096) 68Da2113 delivered on January 28, 1969

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two Defendants (Attorney Kim Dong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 92Na8351 delivered on December 4, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff impliedly consented to the transfer of the right to lease of the land of this case between the non-party 1 and the defendant 1 on the ground that the non-party 2's testimony corresponding thereto is not reliable and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the evidence relations which the court below prepared by the records, the above measures of the court below are justified and there is no error of law of misconception of facts such as the theory of lawsuit

No theory of lawsuit is accepted because it is merely against the selection of evidence and criticism of fact-finding which belong to the exclusive authority of the court below.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below asserted that the non-party 1, the lessee of the land of this case, exercised the right to purchase the building of this case against the plaintiff under Article 643 of the Civil Act. Since the above non-party 1 agreed with the plaintiff to transfer the ownership of the building of this case constructed on the land at the expiration of the above land lease term to the plaintiff or remove the above building and deliver the above land, the above non-party 1 did not recognize the right to purchase the building of this case and therefore, the above defense that the right to purchase the building

However, the agreement between the land lessee and the land lessee that the lessee transfers or removes the above-ground building at the expiration of the lease term is an agreement to exclude the lessee's right to demand the purchase of the ground property under Article 643 of the Civil Act, which is unfavorable to the lessee, and thus shall be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 652 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da19695 delivered on April 23, 191; Supreme Court Decision 92Da22435 delivered on October 9, 192). The decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the lessee's right to demand the purchase of the ground property under Article 652 of the Civil Act and the lessee.

However, the right to purchase a ground object under Article 643 of the Civil Code shall be deemed to be able to be exercised only by the owner of the ground object. As recognized by the court below, if the above non-party 1 transferred the building already constructed on the above land to the defendant 1 on November 26, 1990 before the lease term of the above land expires, the above non-party 1 is not the owner of the above building, and thus it shall not be able to exercise the right to purchase the above building. Therefore, the above illegal acts committed by the court below did not affect the judgment, and therefore, the argument that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles which affected the judgment of the court below is without merit.

(2) The court below's determination that the lessee's right to claim for lease and the right to claim for purchase of the lessee under Article 644 of the Civil Act is recognized only when the lessee legally sub-leases the land with the consent of the land lessee (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da2113, Jan. 28, 1969). Thus, if the above non-party 1 sub-leases the land of this case without the consent of the plaintiff, as recognized by the court below, the above defendant cannot request the plaintiff to purchase the building of this case (this legal principle applies to the case where the lessor terminates the lease contract and the lease term expires without the termination of the lease contract due to the lessee's sub-lease without the consent of the land lessee as well as the case where the lease term expires without the termination of the lease contract due to the lessee's unauthorized sub-lease of the leased object)

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)