logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단100413
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant

(a) deliver the real estate indicated in annex 1’s indication;

(b) annex 1 real estate.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The facts of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim as to the cause of claim are the same as the entry of the cause of claim in the attached Form, and can be acknowledged based on the facts that the parties have no dispute or do not clearly dispute.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) asserts that the defendant shall exercise his right to demand the purchase of the ground against the plaintiff on the facilities installed on the real estate indicated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter "the land in this case").

(2) If the lease expires in the land lease of which the object is to own a building, etc. or the lease expires by the notification of the termination of the lease without setting the period, the lessee may claim the lessor to purchase the building, etc. at a reasonable price pursuant to Article 643 of the Civil Act.

The lessee's right to demand the purchase of the ground property is to preserve the remaining value of the ground building from the national economic point of view and to protect the lessee from the exclusive ownership of the landowner, and in principle, it can be exercised against the lessor who has the land ownership at the time of termination

Where the lessor transfers the ownership of land to a third party due to the transfer of land, etc., if the status of the lessor is succeeded or the lessee can oppose the right of lease, he/she may exercise the right to demand the purchase of land against the new landowner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da72449, 72456 Decided April 26, 2017). The case returned to the instant case, and the agreement between the network C and the Defendant on the instant land terminated on October 30, 2017, as seen earlier. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land on January 3, 2018, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant land.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant may oppose the Plaintiff with the right of lease of the instant land.

arrow