[건물명도][공1993.1.15.(936),264]
The case holding that the lease contract may be terminated on the ground that the reputation and credit have been damaged in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract in case where the sale of the refrat expenses purchased from the wholesaler at the shop shop in the department store was found to have been discovered and found guilty, and the press was reported by the media.
The case holding that the lease contract may be terminated on the ground that the reputation and credit have been damaged in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, in case where the sales of the refrat expenses purchased from the wholesaler at the shop shop in the department store was found to have been discovered and found guilty, and the press was reported.
Article 543 of the Civil Act
Grand Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na33420, 33437 decided July 1, 1992 (Counterclaim)
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
We examine the grounds of appeal.
(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the defendant, while running the business of selling fish at the store of this case from July 23, 1990 to September 30 of the same year, sold the digging expenses purchased by the defendant from the store of this case from the company around July 23, 1990 to the company around September 30 of the same year, to consumers with the mining expense guarantee under the mining expense guarantee as if they were directly manufactured in the mining area, and such facts were discovered to investigation agencies, and such facts were reported to the Seoul Criminal District Court and its appellate court, and there was a conviction as to the violation of the fraud and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Further, in the case of the store of this case as the store of this case operated by the plaintiff, each of the stores within the same building divided into a department store of this case, formed an independent credit and reputation in itself, and each of the stores within the department store of this case was likely to affect the plaintiff's reputation and reputation as well as the grounds for cancellation of the contract of this case.
In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and there are no errors such as misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.
(2) As long as it is recognized that the instant lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was legally terminated as seen above, the defendant's appeal cannot be accepted without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal that the recognition of the lower court on the non-payment of management expenses for the three-month period asserted by the plaintiff as one of the grounds for termination is unreasonable.
(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.