대구지방법원 2013.10.11 2012노3673



All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.


1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. As to interference with business, the Defendants merely stated that they would make monthly payments to A, and did not interfere with their business, and even if they constitute interference with domestic business, they merely referred to in a claim to claim legitimate rights as a lessor, and thus, constitute acts that do not go against the social norms.

B. On the part of Defendant D’s injury, Defendant D merely resisted by verbal speech and did not assault A.

C. As to Defendant B’s insult, although Defendant B took a bath about Defendant B, Defendant B committed assault against A, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and regulations.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below.

1) Defendant B is residing with Defendant C and D, who is a child in the building located in Daegu-gu H, and on June 14, 2008, the office of the second floor of the above building (hereinafter “instant lease”).

A) The lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 150,000 (200,000,000) was determined and leased to A, and the Defendant A tried to make another lessee with respect to the leased portion of this case under the condition that the lease deposit was not refunded to A, following the occurrence of a dispute between Defendant B and A on July 2009: (a) around the parking day of the building; (b) around July 2009, A demanded the termination of the lease contract and damages to Defendant B; (c) only paid the rent up to the part of August 2009, and used the office at another place; and (d) Defendant B tried to seek another lessee with respect to the leased portion of this case under the condition that the deposit was not refunded to A.

3. Since May 1, 201, Defendant B failed to receive the refund of KRW 10 million from Defendant B, Defendant A asserted that monthly rent is deducted from the lease deposit when using the instant leased portion again from May 1, 201.