In case where a lessee uses a leased object under his/her name after obtaining permission for business, and the lease is terminated, whether the lessee’s duty to restore the leased object includes the procedure for reporting the business closure (affirmative)

In a case where the lease is terminated while the lessee obtained permission for business in his/her name and obtained the permission for business, it shall remain separate from the owner and occupant of the real estate which is the basis of the location and shall not remain for a third party. Therefore, the lessee should not interfere with the third party’s business permission again with the lessor or the lessor’s consent by taking procedures such as making a report on the closure of business with respect to the permission for business in his

Articles 654 and 615 of the Civil Act

Yellow Chang (Attorney Hong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Young (Attorney Kim Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall comply with the procedures for reporting the closure of the business license for the "marries restaurant business" in the name of the Defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City, the head of Seosung-gu

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 8, and the whole purport of the oral argument, and no other counter-proof evidence exists.

A. The real estate stated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") is originally owned by the defendant, and the defendant was used by the head of Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City as of December 19, 1985 by obtaining permission to operate a mass restaurant business (Article 3-1-196).

B. On May 198, the Plaintiff agreed to bear KRW 100,000,000 for the Defendant’s obligation borrowed from a financial institution as collateral of the instant real estate from the Defendant, and purchased KRW 240,000,000 for the said amount. On the 30th of the same month, KRW 50,000 out of the price is to be substituted by the Defendant as the deposit money for the continuous use of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, and paid the balance between May 28, 198 and July 16.

C. Accordingly, even after the above sales contract was concluded, when the Defendant continuously occupied and used the instant real estate, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant on January 9, 1990, under which the Plaintiff used 45,000,000 won out of 50,000,000 won as the above deposit for lease and the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use the instant real estate as a public restaurant between the Defendant and the Defendant, which was used as a “here fishery hall”. The remaining amount of KRW 5,00,000 as the deposit for lease and received KRW 1,00,000 in monthly rent without setting a period of time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff continued to occupy and use the instant real estate.

D. However, on January 18, 1993, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would terminate the lease contract on the ground of the rent delay for the instant real estate. Upon filing a claim suit against the Defendant, such as Daejeon District Court 94Gahap600 (principal lawsuit), 94Gahap5285 (Counterclaim) and a judgment in favor of the declaration of provisional execution on January 11, 1995, the Plaintiff was ordered by the Defendant as a provisional execution on February 28, 1995.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on the part of the defendant as a result of the claim of this case, and that the defendant is obligated to file a report on discontinuance of business with respect to the business permission under the defendant's name. The defendant asserted that the above business permission was obtained in the name of the defendant from the beginning and is not obligated to file a report on discontinuance of business on the above permission for

B. Therefore, the duty to restore the lessee’s property to the lessee upon termination of the lease contract with the health care unit is not only to transfer the lessee’s possession of the real property used by the lessee to the lessor, but also to cooperate with the lessor in restoring its original condition so that the lessor can use it again in conformity with the purpose of the lease at the time of lease (see Article 21 of the same Act). Thus, the business license under the Food Sanitation Act is not only subject to an applicant for permission for food service business, but also physical facilities such as the place of business, water supply facilities, lighting facilities, kitchen, kitchen, kitchen, and kitchen room are subject to the determination of permission. Thus, if the lessee terminates the lease after obtaining a business license as in the instant case, it cannot remain separately from the owner and occupant of the real property which is the basis of the location, and thus, it is reasonable that the lessee as the lessee does not have any obligation to legally terminate the lease contract with the lessor or the third party following the lessor’s permission to report the closure of business in his name. Thus, the Defendant’s duty to legally terminate the lease agreement with the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).

Judges Lee Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)