logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.11.26 2015다39418
사업시행자 명의변경절차 이행
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

(a) If a law provides for allowing the transfer of an administrative authority’s permission or patent name, or provides for the procedure for the change of such name, the transferee of the title may bring an action against the transferor seeking the implementation of the procedure for the change of name;

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53622 delivered on February 26, 2002).

citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in light of the provisions of Article 16(1) and (5) of the Housing Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, the lower court determined to the effect that, as the Housing Act permits the change of a housing construction project proprietor and provides procedures for applying for approval of change of a project plan following the change of a project proprietor, a transferee who acquired the right to implement a housing construction project from a project proprietor who obtained approval of the housing construction project plan may file a lawsuit against

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the transfer of approval for the housing construction project plan and the change

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, on the following grounds: (a) on the construction project of multi-family housing in the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “instant project”) to be implemented by the Defendant, approved the housing construction project plan (hereinafter “instant project approval”) with respect to the construction project of multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant project”); and (b) on the construction of a road, which is an infrastructure attached

arrow