The validity of the lease without approval of the Government for the corrected grain;

Article 16 (2) of the Grain Management Act is a law-making act and also has a judicial effect on such violation.

Article 16 of the Grain Management Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (65 Ghana1769)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant paid to the plaintiff 1 the plaintiff 1 the 1,377 hours and the 411 hours of comparison, and to the plaintiff 2 the 520 hours of refining to the plaintiff 3 the 1,560 hours and the 430 hours of comparison to the plaintiff 4 the 1,120 hours of refining to the plaintiff 5 the 840 hours of refining to the plaintiff 6 the 980 hours of refining to the plaintiff 5.

If it is impossible to pay the above in kind, the defendant paid 27,930 won to the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 2,840 won per gold 19,250 won per gold 16,70 won to the plaintiff 4 to the plaintiff 6, and 14,300 won per gold 16,70 won to the plaintiff 5.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

In light of the fact that the main office of the defendant 1 was registered in the name of the defendant 6, and the door of the above 199 was in the name of the defendant 1. The fact that the non-party 1 had worked in the Dong 14 from January 1963 that the non-party 6 had no dispute between the parties, the above 1963 and the non-party 1 had no duty to keep the plaintiff 6's 1 and the non-party 6's 9's 9's 9's 1's 6's 6's 9's 6's 9's 6's 1's 6's 6's 1's 6's 6's 6's 1's 6's 6's 1's 6's 9's 6's 1's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 's 1's 's 's '6's 's 's 's 's 's ' 's 's '1's '6's '

Although the above plaintiffs asserted that the defendant should be held liable for the damages caused by the violation of Article 16 (2) of the Grain Management Act, since the defendant's lease of the above remains unpaid to the non-party 1, this decision is null and void due to the failure of the government's approval. However, even if approval is necessary for the lease of the right to lease of the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right, the above provision does not affect the validity of the private law,

The plaintiff et al. asserted that even if the above contract is valid, the defendant is the nominal owner of the permission of the establishment of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the main office of the non-party 1, and the defendant is obligated to perform the debt incurred by the acts of the non-party who is the defendant's expressed manager under Article 14 of the Commercial

The plaintiffs asserted that, although the non-party 1 is not the defendant's employee, and even if the factory is a lessor, it might cause danger to others in light of the nature of the business, so the defendant was required to permit the authority to conduct the same business in the direction and supervision so that the defendant obtained permission from the authority in his own name and registered in the building register of the office of Eup and Myeon, and reported it to the defendant in the building register of the office of Eup and Myeon, and the factory failure was also left in the defendant's name and operated inside, and the above non-party cannot be exempted from liability for tort against the third party of the non-party who is under his supervision. Thus, the permission from the authority in charge of the company's operation is identical with the theory of lawsuit, but it is valid to lend the facilities and name without the approval of the authority in charge, so the defendant is not legally responsible for the operation of the business of the above non-party who was leased with the facilities and name, and therefore the above plaintiffs cannot be accepted.

Then, the following facts are examined as to the fact that the plaintiff 4 directly stored the above grain to the defendant, and the testimony of the non-party 1 by the witness of the court below and the result of the defendant's examination by the court below, when the defendant received the above grain from the plaintiff 4 of the non-party 1 and issued the custody certificate (Evidence 2-4 of the above non-party 4), it can be known that the defendant, at the request of the above non-party, he was in the form of custody certificate, that "the part of the Domins which was the son's custody on November 9, 1964, and the remaining portion of the Domins which was the custody certificate," and it is not evidence to prove that the defendant received the custody from the plaintiff 4, and there is no other evidence to support it.

If so, it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for objection, and the original judgment, which is the same purport, is reasonable. Therefore, the appeal for objection is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Song-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-ju Kim Young-young