(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.06.18 2014가합1655

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.06.18 2014가합1655

영업허가명의말소절차이행

Text

1. The defendant shall comply with the procedure for reporting the business closure as stated in the attached Form 1 to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that currently owns real estate listed in the annexed Form 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant, from September 13, 1990 to 10, has operated resting restaurants (hereinafter “instant resting restaurants”) with the permission to conduct the same business as that stated in the annexed Form 1 (hereinafter “instant business permission”).

B. The instant real estate was sold to B and C through a voluntary auction on December 9, 201, and thereafter, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from B and C on November 18, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 201.

C. Meanwhile, when the real estate in this case was sold to B and C in the above voluntary auction procedure, the defendant delivered the instant resting restaurant to the Dong, but did not comply with the procedure for reporting the closure of the resting restaurant in his name until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), fact-finding to the head of the ideology and body of the court in Busan, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above basic facts, the defendant did not comply with the procedure for reporting the closure of the business permission of this case without a legitimate authority to use and benefit from the real estate of this case and thereby hindering the plaintiff, the owner, from using and benefiting from the real estate of this case in conformity with the purpose of use. Thus, the plaintiff, upon the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership, is

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that even if the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate, insofar as the Defendant did not conclude a business license transfer or takeover agreement with the Defendant, it cannot seek implementation of the procedure for reporting the business closure on the instant business license. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the instant real estate

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.06.18 2014가합1662

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2015.08.13 2015가합51

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.06.20 2018가단20018

-부산고등법원 2015.03.12 2014나4453

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.09.05 2017가합445