The case holding that it is not liable for delay in rent until the existence of legal superficies and the amount of land rent is determined by a final judgment between the person who established the legal superficies.

"Land rent for more than two years" in Article 287 of the Civil Act, which provides for the right to claim the termination of superficies of a person who created superficies, refers to the overdue rent for more than two years, and the superficies should not have been paid for more than two years for the purpose of the right to claim the termination of superficies. In order to claim the termination of the superficies, the superficies should not have been paid for more than two years for the reason that the existence of the superficies itself is in dispute (the name of the building, removal, delivery of the site, return of unjust enrichment, and claim for rent) and the reversed judgment, which eventually became final and conclusive by the decision of the Supreme Court, if the existence of the superficies and the amount of the rent for the superficies are determined by the decision, even if the statutory superficies did not pay the rent, it cannot be deemed that the above rent was delayed for the reason that the legal superficies was responsible.

Article 287 of the Civil Act

Scarsia

(1) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (2)

Seoul Civil District Court 90 Gohap94707 decided

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

(a) In order to own each of the buildings listed in paragraph 1(b) below, the legal superficies over 484 323 square meters and 490 o 67 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the legal superficies over 490 o 67 square meters are extinguished.

B. Defendant next-hee is the Plaintiff:

(1) Part (Ga) within the line (Ha) of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 0, and 1 successively connecting each point constructed on the ground of the 476, 484, 48, 490, and 612-1, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the (Ha) of Simenbrobrost block and the evaluation of tent extract, and 484 and 490 above ground-ground No. 16,2,20, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 25, 24, 21, 21, 26, 16, 3 (Ga), 16 (Ga), 3 (Ga), 8 (Ga), 16 (Ga), 16 (Ga), 3 (Ga), 16 (Ga), 3 (Ga) in succession in succession.

(2) 같은 동 484, 488의 2, 490, 612 및 618 지상에 건축된 같은 도면표시 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 27의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선 내의 (갸)내지 (햐)부분 시멘블럭조 목조스레트즙 평가건 점포 및 주택 1동 52.8평방미터 중 같은 동 484 및 490 양 지상 같은 도면표시 27, 55, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 52, 51, , 46, , 42, 27의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선 내의 (갸), (냐), (댜), (랴), (챠), (캬), (탸), (퍄)부분 43.4평방미터를,

(iii)in the line (o) in which each point of the same map display 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 56, constructed on the ground of the same 484, are successively connected, (p) section (p) and mentmen block, and coagum 17.6 square meters per unit;

(4) the fenced on the line that connects 34,69,80 of the same drawing(s) constructed on the ground above the same 484 in sequence;

(v)the fences on the line connecting each point of 79, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74 of the same drawings, constructed on the ground above the same 484, in sequence;

(6) the fenced on the line connecting each point of the 65,66,67 of the same drawings as constructed on the ground above the same 484 in sequence;

(7) a line fenced in sequence with each point of 37,78 of the same drawings, constructed on the ground above the same 484;

(8) remove each line fenced with each point of the same map display, 76, 77 successively constructed on the ground above the same 484, and deliver each of the same site.

C. The Plaintiff:

(1) 피고 김재욱은 위 제1의 나. (2)항 기재 건물 중 (갸), (냐), (댜), (랴)부분 16.5평방미터에서, (2) 피고 송융일은 위 제1의 나. (2)항 기재 건물 중 (챠), (캬), (탸), (퍄)부분 26.9평방미터에서, (3) 피고 최효진은 위 제1의 나. (3)항 기재 건물 중 (거),(너)부분 17.6평방미터에서 각 퇴거하라.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

3. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The same is as the disposition (the plaintiff extended the purport of the claim by adding the claims in paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of paragraph (1) of the order to the court).

The land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the land of this case is located between 484, 323 square meters and 67 square meters, 490, hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"). The land of this case is owned by the defendant Byung-hee, who acquired legal superficies on September 17, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the legal superficies of this case") in order to own each of the buildings listed in 1-b. (1), (2), and (3) constructed on the site of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), and the land of this case is clearly asserted that the defendant Byung-hee occupied the land of this case by owning each of the fences listed in 484, 323 square meters and 490, 490 (hereinafter referred to as "the wall of this case"), but it is not clear that the defendants occupied only the remaining land of this case as stated in 130, 130, 3000.

According to Article 287 of the Civil Act, when a person with superficies does not pay rent for more than two years, the person who has established the superficies has the right to claim the termination of the superficies. The defendant did not pay rent at one time after the creation of the superficies. Accordingly, the above statutory superficies was extinguished pursuant to the above provisions. Accordingly, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the right to remove the building and fence of this case and deliver the land of this case, and the other defendants have the obligation to withdraw from their possession. The defendants did not pay rent for reasons not attributable to the defendant, so the claim for extinguishment of the superficies did not occur, and therefore, the plaintiff's above claim is without merit, so the plaintiff's claim for termination of the superficies was rejected for more than two years. The defendant did not pay the above rent to the plaintiff for more than two years. Thus, the above claim for termination of the superficies was not examined as to whether the person with superficies was responsible for more than two years.

성립에 다툼없는 갑 제2호증의 1, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제4호증, 을 제15호증, 을 제16호증, 을 제17호증, 을 제18호증, 을 제25호증, 을 제46호증의 2, 3(각 판결, 증거로 제출된 나머지 판결 중 을 제31호증은 을 제17호증과, 을 제32호증은 갑 제2호증의 1과, 을 제37호증 및 을 제46호증의 1은 갑 제4호증과 각 같다), 갑 제2호증의 2,을 제19호증(각 결정), 을 제35호증(대위담보취소),을 제36호증(압류 및 전부명령), 을 제26호증, 을 제30호증, 을 제44호증(각 검증조서), 을 제27호증(감정서), 을 제29호증, 을 제48호증(각 공탁서, 공성부분만을 증거로 사용한다)의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 1986년경 당시 이 사건 건물을 점유하고 있던 피고 김재욱, 피고 송융일, 피고 최효진 및 소외 김창석을 상대로 서울민사지방법원 86가단342호 로 명도소송을 제기하였고 이에 대하여 위 피고들 및 소외인은 그들의 임대인인 피고 차상희가 이 사건 대지에 대한 법정지상권을 가지고 있다는 이유로 위 명도청구를 다투었으나 위 법원은 1987.1.22. 위 차상희에게 법정지상권이 발생하지 아니하였다는 이유에서 원고에 대한 승소판결을 하였고, 그에 대한 항소심인 서울민사지방법원 87나482호 사건에서 위 법원은 1987.5.20. 같은 이유로 위 피고들 및 소외인의 항소를 기각하였으나 그에 대한 상소심인 대법원 87다카1564호 사건에서 대법원은 1988.10.25. 위 차상희에게 법정지상권이 발생하였다는 이유로 원심판결을 파기하였으며 그에 따라 환송 후의 항소심인 서울민사지방법원 88나33857호 사건에서 위 법원은 1989.4.14. 위 피고들 및 소외인의 항소를 인용하여 원심판결을 취소하고 원고의 명도청구를 기각한 사실, 한편 그 사이에 원고는 피고 차상희와 소외 차상인을 공동피고로 하여 서울민사지방법원 87가합3067, 5316호 로 이 사건 건물의 명도(예비적으로는 이 사건 건물의 철거)와 이 사건 대지의 인도 및 부당이득반환을 구하는 소를 제기하였는데, 위 법원이 1988.1.21. 이 사건 건물의 철거(주위적 청구인 이 사건 건물의 명도청구는 기각하였다)와 이 사건 대지의 인도 및 부당이득금(금 5,383,717원 및 1987.12.1.부터 위 토지인도일까지 월 금 195,013원의 비율에 의한 금원)의 지급을 각 명하는 판결을 내렸으나, 이에 대한 항소심인 서울고등법원 88나6797, 6803호 사건에서 위 법원은 1989.2.13. 피고 차상희가 이 사건 대지 위에 법정지상권을 취득하였다는 이유에서 피고 차상희와 소외 차상인의 항소를 인용하여 원심판결을 취소하고 이 사건 건물의 철거청구 및 이 사건 대지의 인도청구와 부당이득금반환청구를 모두 기각하면서 다만 원고가 예비적으로 주장한 지료청구에 대하여 '금 21,144,514원 및 1987.12.1.부터 위 법정지상권이 소멸될 때까지 월 금 765,914원의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급하라'는 판결을 내렸고, 이 판결은 1989.5.23. 대법원 89다카7174,7181호 상고허가신청기각결정 에 의하여 확정된 사실(피고 차상희가 위 서울고등법원 88나6797, 6803호 사건에 대한 재심청구를 하였으나 1989.11.3.청구기각되었다), 또한 원고는 위 확정된 지료 중 1989.11.1.부터는 월 금 765,914원의 비율에 의한 지료가 상당하지 않다는 이유에서 피고 차상희를 상대로 서울민사지방법원 89가단48886호 지료증액청구의 소를 제기하여 위 법원이 1990.10.10. '1989.11.1.부터 지료를 월 금 1,438,600원으로 증액한다'라는 판결이 선고되었고, 이에 대한 위 피고의 항소는 1991.4.17. 서울민사지방법원 90나30844호 로 항소기각되었으며, 그에 대한 상고도 역시 1991.7.26. 대법원 91다17641호 로 상고기각됨으로써 확정된 사실, 피고 차상희는 1983.9.17. 이 사건 법정지상권을 취득한 후 현재까지 원고에게 지료를 지급한 사실이 없고, 다만 원고가 위 서울민사지방법원 87가합3067, 5316호 사건의 가집행선고부 판결정본에 기하여 이 사건 건물의 철거의 강제집행을 하려고 하자 위 피고가 그 집행을 정지 받기 위하여 서울민사지방법원88년 금 제4076호로 금 5,000,000원을 공탁하였는데, 원고가 위 서울고등법원 88나6797,6803호 사건의 집행력 있는 판결정본을 채무명의로 하여 1989.3.16. 서울지방법원 동부지원 89타기2680, 2681호 결정 으로 위 피고의 국가에 대한 위 공탁금반환청구권을 압류 및 전부받고, 계속하여 1989.4.19. 서울고등법원 89카196호 대위담보취소결정 에 의하여 위 금 5,000,000원을 수령하여 위 서울고등법원 88나6797,6803호 판결 에서 인정된 자료의 일부에 충당한 사실, 위 피고가 1991.9.10. 수원지방법원 성남지원에 지료로서 금 3,000,000원을 변제공탁한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

In light of these facts, it is difficult to view that the above payment of rent was delayed due to the reasons attributable to the above defendant's 1's liability until May 23, 1989, and the materials were not paid only after the lapse of 2 years from May 23, 1989, since the above payment of rent was not made to the plaintiff, since the Seoul High Court 88Na6797,6803, where the existence of statutory superficies itself and the amount of rent was disputed, the above payment of rent was made to the plaintiff on May 23, 1989 (the above payment of rent was made to the plaintiff on May 23, 1989; the above payment of rent was not made to the defendant on 199,500 won after the above provisional superficies was extinguished (the plaintiff's attachment, assignment order and security; the above payment of rent was not made to the plaintiff on 199,599,419,509,999).

The above defendant alleged to the effect that the statutory superficies on the site of this case occurred only at 130 square meters necessary for the building of this case, and even if not, the part exceeding 130 square meters is merely 195,013 won per month since the above defendant renounced as of August 19, 191, and the land rent is merely 5,000,000 won received by the plaintiff according to the seizure and assignment order until May 23, 1989. Accordingly, the above claim for the reduction of 2 years was not delayed until September 10, 1991. But the extent of the legal superficies on the site of this case is not necessarily limited to the site of the building, but it is generally necessary for the use of the building, and the above part of the building of this case, except for the site of this case, can not be seen as being retroactively affected by the defendant's expression of intention, and it cannot be viewed as being 19 years retroactively since it was surrounded by the latter building of this case and the land of this case.

Ultimately, statutory superficies as to the site of this case was extinguished as above, and otherwise, unless there is no proof of any other claim against the Defendants to possess the site of this case, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff are obligated to remove the building of this case and fence, deliver the site of this case, and all the remaining Defendants, who are the occupants of the building of this case, are also obligated to leave the building of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case can be accepted for reasons. Since the judgment of the court below differs from this conclusion, the judgment of the court below is revoked by accepting the Plaintiff’s appeal, and the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted, and the payment of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be governed by Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act and by attaching a declaration

Judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)