Whether the right of lease is succeeded in case the lessee of the property devolvingd has transferred the right of lease to a third party.

Even if the lessee of an asset devolvingd to a third party transfers the right of lease, the right of association between the parties is not succeeded.

Earciltains

The Director General of Seoul Government

No. (Attorney Jeong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu41 delivered on August 27, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, while the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant is assessed against the defendant.

The gist of the Defendant’s first point in the grounds of appeal is as follows: (1) as to the sale and purchase of the property which generally reverts to 40 square meters, taking the form of the contractor’s return of the property without any stipulation as in this case and allowing the transferee to apply for the contract. In this case, it is impossible to understand that the non-party’s return of the property without any condition in terms of social norms is returned to the non-party’s return of the property in the non-party’s first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the third place in the order of the third place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the third place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the third place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order of the first place in the order.

The gist of the defendant's second ground of appeal is that the second ground of appeal did not raise any objection to the deferred appeal after the return of the property, because he transferred the right of lease and returned the property right thereafter, he did not have interest in the property. The person who has interest in the property is the purchaser of the right, and even though he succeeded to the right of interest, the court below erred in incomplete hearing or decision-making failure. However, it is not justified for the reason of the same as the judgment on the issue of the first ground of appeal No. 1 (2).

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s Intervenor is that the Defendant’s Intervenor finds out that the contract was omitted with a person who was subject to a change of name as the lessee of the land in question, applied for additional non-performance, and filed a petition against the Plaintiff on the disposition of non-performance of the right to appeal against the Plaintiff, and thus the court below’s decision to correct it is reasonable for the Defendant’s decision to revoke the non-performance of the right to appeal against the Plaintiff, but it is unreasonable for the court below to accept the Plaintiff’s claim from the opposite position. However, it is clear that the Defendant’s appeal

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court