Background

Landlords filed a case against a first defendant and other defendants requesting that the court order the defendants to vacate a rented shop. The landlords stated that the first defendant rented the shop and established a company with another defendant, but the original tenant exited the company and was replaced by his son which meant that he gave up the tenancy agreement.

The court ruled that the defendants vacate the rented shop.

The first defendant appealed and the appeal court upheld the ruling.

The first defendant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court, the first defendant argued that the ruling had insufficient evidence of causation and had violated his right in defence as he had maintained before the court that his exit from the company was not implemented, that the tax file remained under his name and he did not leave the shop. The defendant stated that he requested that the court refer the dispute for investigation to prove his claims but the court ignored his request.