[귀속재산매매계약및임대차계약취소][집11(2)행088]
The site of the store and the site of Article 11 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership in the case where the store was installed and the store was operated with miscellaneous images on the tobacco retail
If a store is installed and retailed a tobacco plant, the site of the store is the business site.
Article 11 of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion
Park Dong-soo et al. (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Director General of Seoul Government
Attorney Lee Yong-chul (Attorney Lee Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu141 delivered on July 4, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.
However, in full view of all the evidence in the court below, it is not possible to recognize the fact that there was a building constructed by the Non-Party Gabideide in this case from a certain point of time on the building site, and it does not necessarily pass through the preservation registration at the same time as the construction of the building. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the building passed the preservation registration of the building on May 8, 1948.
In addition, the facts that stuffed miscellaneous images were operated from a certain point of time in the above building do not seem to be recognized by the court below in full view of the evidence cited by the court below, and if a store was established and retailed the year, it is reasonable to regard the site of the store as the business site, so all the arguments are independent opinions and cannot be employed.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s Intervenor’s representative.
However, the judgment of the court below of citing (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the theory of lawsuit is just, and the other part of the theory of lawsuit is just.
In addition, in full view of each of the evidence at the court below, it is not possible to recognize the fact that the island runs the tobacco plant retail and other miscellaneous images at the main shop, and since there is no evidence to recognize the land as the shop site, it cannot be deemed unlawful because the court below did not conduct on-site verification and did not urge the verification of the point, and even if the house site is a house site, it cannot be viewed as the site of the store as a business site. Therefore, all of the arguments are groundless since the building site of the store is not interfered with the view that the building site of the store is a business site.
It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)