beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
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 cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, excluding “not only the 6th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, but also the 19th sentence of the 19th sentence of the 6th sentence of the 19th sentence,” and thus, citing the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Meanwhile, in light of the Defendant’s attitude that the Plaintiff did not impose any specific sanctions on nonperformance of the obligation to report the change of the size of the restaurant in this case for a considerable period of time, and lent the site, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe that the Defendant would not have any problem with the Plaintiff’s failure to report the change of the size of the restaurant in this case.
However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleading as a whole, the Plaintiff appears to have been operating the restaurant in an unlawful state without reporting the change in the area of the business site, by using the circumstance where the Defendant was aware that it was not allowed to operate the restaurant at will, by arbitrarily expanding the restaurant, by using the circumstance where the Defendant was aware that it was not allowed, and thus, it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff’
Ultimately, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.
① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the loan of military property with the Defendant for the purpose of the extension of the restaurant in this case and expressed the purpose of use of the leased property as “housing” or “culture,” etc. rather than the place of business, the Plaintiff seems not to be allowed to operate the restaurant in this case at will, and the Plaintiff is not allowed to enter into a contract for the loan of military property in the event of the extension of the restaurant for the purpose of the restaurant.
② The area originally reported by the Plaintiff is considerably significant.