beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.07.22 2019가단218663

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 38,263,950 with respect to the Plaintiff and Defendant B and Defendant C with respect thereto from January 16, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The first floor G of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building(hereinafter “instant building”) is jointly owned by Defendant B and C in share of 1/2.

B. On December 26, 2018, the Plaintiff colored the building for the purpose of opening the beauty room, and concluded a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with Defendant B, C, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease period of the instant building from February 1, 2019 to January 31, 202.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid 2,00,000 won to Defendant B and C on the date of concluding the contract, and paid 18,000,000 won for the remainder on January 19, 2019.

C. On January 23, 2019, the Plaintiff reported the opening of the beauty art room business with the trade name “H” and started the beauty art room business after completing the arching construction of the instant building.

On the other hand, in order to enter the building of this case, the method of leading up to a narrow-shaped main entrance through which the passage of the human wave is high, and the method of leading up to the entrance into the front side of the building (the rear side when viewed from the side) bypassing the parking lot. However, the owner of the adjoining real estate among the above artificial park construction works, the land of the main entrance part of the building of this case where the owner of the adjoining real estate is changing as the surface of the building, and the Plaintiff did not have the right to use it, prevented him from entering the building by installing a steel net after the opening of the beauty room.

The main entrance of the building of this case

E. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, Defendant B and C did not explain the circumstances that the land of the said main entrance part is owned by others and the right to use is not secured.

F. Defendant D did not notify the Plaintiff of the content that it could interfere with the passage through the main entrance, on the premise that Defendant D could use the main entrance.