beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
Claim:
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
(No. 15-2 of the 4th 17th 17th son of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the “No. 16-2 of the A”, and the “No. 15-1 of the A” of the 5th 1st son shall be subject to the “No. 16-1 and No. 4-1 and No. 4-2 of the A”, respectively: Provided, That with respect to the Defendant’s assertion raised in the appellate trial, the following judgments shall be added.
2. The addition;
A. First, the Plaintiff did not meet the “qualification of a corporation, cooperative, or business cooperative within six months after its organization,” under the proviso of Article 13(2)3 of the former Distribution Industry Development Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5327, Apr. 10, 1997; Act No. 6959, Jul. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same), and thus, the Plaintiff cannot manage the instant commercial building by losing its status as a superstore operator.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the management fee of this case against the defendant is improper.
Second, 184 is a temporary building established in the section for common use of the commercial building of this case and belongs to the co-ownership of the sectional owners. Thus, the management and disposal authority regarding 184 subparagraph of the commercial building should be attributed to the "AAAAAAAR", separate from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, it would be beyond the plaintiff's authority to seek the rent claim and the delivery of commercial building No. 184 against the defendant.
Third, the commercial building 184 is a building constructed in violation of the Building Act (Article 14) and the Parking Lot Act (Article 19-4) and its lease on a building violating the mandatory law is null and void. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot make a delivery or a request for rent, etc. against the Defendant.
B. First, Article 13(2)3 of the former Distribution Industry Development Act is a store size.