beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 1. of Annex A to the Judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance was modified as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. As seen above, Article 13(2) of the Ordinance of this case provides, “A person who acquires all the land and buildings used for tourism business through an auction under the Civil Execution Act shall succeed to the status of the tourism business operator,” and Article 13(4) of the Ordinance of this case provides, “A person who succeeds to the status of a tourism business operator shall submit to the Do governor a report on transfer of the tourism business (the status succession) within one month from the date on which the relevant ground arises.”
However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the land subject to the instant business right is three lots, such as F, G, and H, in Jeju-si, and the total site area is 4,967 square meters, and T&W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter " T&W oil") acquired the ownership of the said land in a compulsory sale procedure on March 18, 2016 for a size of 1,858 square meters in Jeju-si, a part of the entire site, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land in the future of the Asian Trust Co., Ltd. on the same day, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that T&W acquired the land as a trust on the said land, G, H, and its ground, which are the remaining land for the instant business, and there is no evidence to support the fact that T&W has completed the registration of ownership succession with the Governor, etc.
Therefore, T&B succeeded to the status of tourism business operator as to the instant business right.
As such, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was not a legitimate right holder, such as the instant business right, etc., based on this premise.