Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth below 2 to the plaintiffs' assertion.
2. Additional determination
A. According to the principle of equity, the Plaintiffs asserts that the merger in this case was made based on the free will of the parties, unlike inheritance by inheritance, and thus, in principle, the Plaintiffs claim that the right to terminate the lease exists. (2) However, in the case of a merger, the merger is succeeded to the surviving company due to the merger, except that the right and duty of the surviving company is not permitted to be transferred to a third party, regardless of its private relationship or public law, regardless of its nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da44002, Aug. 25, 201; 2002Du1946, Jul. 8, 2004). In light of the fact that the surviving company due to the merger ceases to exist without undergoing liquidation procedures (see, e.g., Articles 227 subparag. 4 and 517 subparag. 1 of the Commercial Act), it is difficult to view that the surviving company becomes a party to the merger in the process of a merger to be comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the surviving company.
Therefore, the right to terminate each of the instant lease agreements against the plaintiffs to the defendant.