logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017나67322
전세권설정등기청구 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

[Plaintiff-Appellant] asserts that “The Plaintiff was engaged in the automobile transaction business under the name of Chokman G and did not sublet each land of this case without permission.” The lessee does not transfer or sub-lease his right without the consent of the lessor, and if the lessee violates this, the lessor may cancel the lease contract. This is intended to protect the lessor’s personal trust and economic interests in consideration of the continuous legal relations based on the original personal trust of the party. The lessee’s use or profit-making of the leased object to a third party without the consent of the lessor can be an incidental act that makes it difficult for the lessor to continue the lease relationship (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da45308, Apr. 27, 1993; 92Da45308, Apr. 27, 1993). In addition, the lessee’s relationship with the sub-contractor and the lessee are not subject to the lease or loan-lease relationship, and only part of the relationship between the leased and the leased are related.

A witness G of the trial court stated that the Plaintiff lent his name to allow the Plaintiff to carry on the used car transaction business in the name of “E”, and that himself was paid KRW 1,200,000 per month as a salary while assisting the Plaintiff’s business. However, objective evidence, such as a labor contract and salary, which is supporting this, is not submitted, and “E” and “E” are separate business entities, and the place of business of “E” have been installed on the instant land. In light of the circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have used the instant land to G, and this is to continue to continue the lease relationship of this case.

arrow