logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.25 2015나2035896
임차권 양도에 대한 동의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments with regard to the allegations made by the defendant in the trial or by adding the following judgments in addition to the allegations made by the defendant in the trial. As such, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The "Plaintiff" at the last place of the second line with the modifications or additions shall be written in the form of "Defendant".

The phrase "3. The summary of the party's assertion" shall be changed from the following to the 11st page of the 3rd parallel to the 4th parallel parallel:

3. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes exceptional grounds for transferring the right of lease under the Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes, inasmuch as he/she had transferred the residence due to work, etc., the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the lease agreement, but Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act imposes the obligation to consent to the transfer of the right of lease on the Defendant, who is a rental business operator. Therefore, the Plaintiff

3) If the transferee needs to be specified in the transfer of the right of lease, the Plaintiff has the right to directly select the transferee, so that the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain consent on the transfer of the right of lease by selecting the transferee as D and seeking consent on the transfer of the right of lease. 4) As long as it is not confirmed by the Defendant that D is not a homeless person, the Defendant is obligated to consent on the transfer of the right of lease to D.

B. In the proviso of Article 19 of the Rental Housing Act, the Defendant’s assertion that Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act stipulates that Article 18(3) of the Rental Housing Act provides for the rental business operator’s consent that is not delegated by the Rental Housing Act, despite delegation by the Presidential Decree that only the grounds for allowing a transfer of the right of lease or a sub-lease

arrow