(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.07.04 2018가합100

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) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.07.04 2018가합100

허가명의변경절차이행 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 15, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the C Ground Building at Jinju-si, and owns the said building up to the present day.

On April 28, 1981, the first floor of the above building (hereinafter “the building of this case”) was used for the entertainment tavern business even though its trade name and representative were changed after obtaining permission for business as an entertainment tavern business.

B. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 30 million with respect to the instant building, and two years with the lease term of the instant building. On April 29, 2008, the Defendant changed the nominal owner of the instant business license to the Defendant. After completing business registration on May 1, 2008, the Plaintiff engaged in entertainment tavern business, while leaving the house and fixtures in the instant building as they were.

C. Article 5 of the above lease contract provides, “The lessee may rebuild or alter with the approval of the lessor, but the lessee bears the burden of the lessee before the date of return of the real estate.” The lessee’s duty to restore due to the termination of the lease includes the lessor’s duty to cooperate so that the lessor can use the leased property again in line with the purpose of the real estate at the time of lease.

Since the instant building was used for the entertainment tavern business from the beginning, the Defendant is obligated to change the name of the instant business license to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s designated person.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In a case where the existence of a right or legal relation disputed in a lawsuit has already been dealt with in a prior suit between the same parties, and a final judgment thereon has been rendered, the parties cannot make any allegations that conflict with this, and the court may not make any judgment that conflict with this, and the existence of a final judgment above should not be examined and determined by the court ex officio, even if there is no allegations by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da3892, May 22, 1992).

This Court.

참조판례

-대법원 1992. 5. 22. 선고 92다3892 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.11.23 2016가합298

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2018나83521

-창원지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나52829

-대구지방법원 2016.04.28 2014가합5498