토지임대차 종료 시 건물매수청구권행사와 토지인도청구

Civil Act Article 643, 283 provides that the lessee of land has the right to demand renewal of the contract and if the lessor does not want to renew the contract, the lesse may ask the lessor to purchase the buildings etc. remaining on land on termination of the period of land lease for owning the buildings etc. at a reasonable price. By exercising of the right of the lessee of land to ask the lessor to purchase buildings etc., a sale contract is established between the lessor and the lessee and the lassor cannot refuse to purchase buildings etc. According to the Supreme Court precedents, when the lessor files a suit to demand the lessee to dismantle the building on land and to transfer the building site after the expiration of the lease period, if the lessee exercises the right to purchase, the suit must be rejected. The claim to dismantle the building on land and to transfer the building site does not include the claim to transfer the building at the same time as the payment of the purchase price of the building, and the court must clarify whether the lessor will continue to maintain the previous claim or whether he intends to change it to the claim to transfer the building. However, when the lessor claims the dismantlement of the building and the land transfer, if the lessee exercises the right to purchase the building and the lessor changes the claim to transfer of the building and also transfer of the land, will the court sustain the claims all? I have not found a Supreme Court ruling directly referring to that point. Since the Supreme Court precedents does not disclose the reasons for rejecting not only the claim for dismantlement of the building but also the claim for transfery of land, it can not be said clearly what the position of the Supreme Court to that question is. In the lower court rulings, there are (1) rulings that sustained the claim for the transfer of the whole land; (2) rulings that partly rejected the claim for transfer of the part of land necessary for the ownership of the building and partly sustained the claim for transfer of the rest of the land. In my opinion, the courts have to sustain all the claims for building transfer, building ownership transfer registration, and land transfer, and all three of these claims and the payment of building price and the return of land lease deposits should be implemented concurrently. I think that these problems should be taken into consideration sufficiently in setting the bar examination questions.