beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determination, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The defendants are further asserted in the trial and examined as follows.
1) The Defendants are the owners of the instant land in Korea, and thus, have no standing to sue for the Plaintiff. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to sue exists for a person who asserts himself/herself that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit. Therefore, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, the Plaintiff has standing to sue for the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants’ main defense to safety is without merit. 2) Defendant A and B asserted that the lease agreement entered into with the Plaintiff is revoked by the delivery of the statement of grounds for appeal as of February 26,
However, if there is an error in the declaration of intention as stipulated in Article 109 of the Civil Code, it is against the perception and comparison of the markr, as it is believed that there is no fact at the time of the juristic act, or that there is no fact at the time of the juristic act.
Although the contents of the above Defendants’ assertion are unclear, it seems that the conclusion of a lease agreement does not affect the assertion of legal superficies even if it was concluded in light of the purport of the assertion, or that the above lease agreement was erroneous in setting the fees on the premise of legal superficies. However, the fact that the conclusion of a lease agreement did not recognize that it could affect the assertion of legal superficies cannot be deemed as an error in the important part of legal acts prescribed in Article 109 of the Civil Act, and that it was known that the rent was set on the premise of legal superficies.