[1] Whether a person can file a civil lawsuit against a change in the name of a multi-purpose business permit (affirmative)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the person failed to perform his/her duty to explain the change of business name and the scope of compensation

[1] Considering the various relevant provisions under the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act, in cases where a lessee rents underground parts of a building owned by a lessor which has been used for a multi-purpose purpose, he/she operates a multi-purpose business with permission obtained in the name of a lessee during the lease term, but operates a multi-purpose business with permission obtained in the name of a lessee at the expiration of the lease term, and he/she agreed to change the name of such permission to a multi-purpose business in the name of a lessor at the expiration of the lease term, and ordered the lessor to specify the part of the building due to the expiration of the lease term, it shall be deemed that the lessor succeeds to the status of the multi-purpose business operator. Therefore, the lessee is obligated to implement the procedures for changing the name of multi-purpose

[2] The case reversing the decision of the court below rejecting the claim for damages on the ground of the violation of the duty to explain, although it is not sufficient to assert and prove the lessor's claim for damages due to the lessor's failure to perform the obligation to change the name of the building but the lessor's name of the building was ordered to the lessor, and even if the lessor's assertion and evidence on the amount of damages are insufficient, it can be used for any purpose other than the multiple banks, if used for any other purpose, it is a vehicle that can be received when the part of the building can be changed to the lessee's name in the lease of the building without a change in the name of the lessee's business license, rather than the rent that can be received when the part of the building is leased without a change in the name of the lessee's business license.

[1] Article 389 of the Civil Act, Article 695 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act / [2] Article 390 of the Civil Act, Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do966 delivered on July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 1422), Supreme Court Decision 80Do176 delivered on August 20, 1981 (Gong1981, 14305), Supreme Court Decision 88Da3986 delivered on May 9, 198 (Gong1989, 896) (Gong1992, 1576) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da45831 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong194, 1669)

Kim Chang-hwan

A person with reason

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na4750 delivered on April 4, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that "(1) A person who has obtained business permission under the provisions of Article 22(1) or has made a report on business under the provisions of paragraph (5) of the same Article (hereinafter referred to as a "business operator") transfers his/her business, dies, or a merger of corporations takes place, the transferee, heir, or the corporation surviving the merger or the corporation established by the merger shall succeed to the status of the business operator.

Considering the relevant provisions of the above Food Sanitation Act and the Enforcement Rules thereof, as recognized by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, on April 23, 1993, owned by the plaintiff as belonging to the plaintiff, the underground part of the building located in the 98-8-dong, Seocheon-si (hereinafter referred to as the "part of the building in this case") located in the plaintiff on April 23, 1993, when he leases the building with a deposit of KRW 10 million,50,000,000,000 monthly rent, and one-year lease period, he operates the multi-school business in the part of the building in this case with a permission for multi-school business in the name of the defendant during the lease period. When the lease period expires, he agreed to the name of the permission holder in the name of the plaintiff and ordered the plaintiff to suspend the part of the building in this case with a multiple permission as stated in the attached list at the time of original adjudication, it is equivalent to the time when the defendant transferred the business to that plaintiff.

On the other hand, if it is acknowledged that the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to suspend the part of the instant building but failed to perform the obligation to change the name of the permission for multiple business, the lower court should not reject the Plaintiff’s claim for damages solely on the ground that there is insufficient assertion and proof as to the amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff, but should clarify it by actively exercising the right to explanation and urging the Plaintiff to prove the amount of damages, such as whether the part of the instant building can be used for any purpose other than multiple business, if it can be used for any other purpose, whether it is a vehicle that can be received when the name of the lessee is changed to the name of the lessee when leasing the part of the instant building without changing the name of the permission for business.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the claim for damages on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the change of the business license of this case was made by the business transfer as stipulated in Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. The court below rejected the claim for damages on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the amount of damages without clarifying the claim about the scope of damages and urging to prove it. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the change of the business license of this case under the Food Sanitation Act, and violated the duty to explain the amount of damages in a lawsuit claiming damages due to nonperformance of obligation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)