Whether the filing of a lawsuit for removal of a building constitutes the notification of termination of the lease contract for the site.

In a lawsuit seeking removal of a building on the ground of termination of a lease agreement, even if there is no evidence of the notification of such termination, the filing of the lawsuit itself shall be deemed to be the notification of termination, and as long as the statutory period has elapsed after the filing of the lawsuit until the closing of argument, the above lease agreement was terminated unless there is a ground to prevent the termination of the lease agreement.

Articles 635 and 636 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu856 Decided September 13, 1983 Decided 4289Hun-Ba203 Decided July 5, 1956

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 83Na55 delivered on March 30, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the instant building on the ground that the Defendant did not dispute between the parties, but there is no evidence to deem that the said lease contract was lawfully terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any legal effect on the ground that the said lease contract was lawfully terminated.

2. However, in a lawsuit seeking removal of a building on the ground of termination of a lease agreement, the filing of the lawsuit in question is deemed to be the notification of termination even if there is no evidence to specifically notify the termination of the lease agreement. Thus, since the above lease agreement is terminated unless there is a ground to prevent the termination of the lease agreement from being effective, unless the legal period has elapsed after the filing of the lawsuit and the closing of argument, the above lease agreement is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu856, Sept. 13, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 4289Hun-Ba203, Jul. 5, 1956). If it is possible to determine and terminate the lease agreement of this case first, the court below should consider the filing of the lawsuit itself as the notification of termination, and determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim by examining and confirming the existence of the grounds to prevent the termination of the lease agreement and the validity of the termination thereof, the plaintiff's claim for removal of the building of this case should be dismissed on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)