손해배상(기)
1. Each claim against the counterclaim Defendant is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 14, 2014, the Defendants: (a) leased the Plaintiff at KRW 30,000,000, monthly rental fee of KRW 31,00,000, and KRW 3,100,000; (b) however, the terms and conditions of the said lease agreement stipulated in paragraph (9) of the said special terms and conditions include the following: (a) the lessee agrees to the sub-lease of the lessee; (c) the lessee agrees to the sub-lease of the lessee (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”).
B. On September 2015, the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the rent, the Defendants sent content-certified mail to the Plaintiff, which included the purport that the lease contract for the instant commercial building is terminated, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant commercial building (which refers to the main lawsuit related to the instant lawsuit at the Jung-gu District Court High Court Decision 2015dan86592, and the instant lawsuit) but withdrawn the said commercial building upon delivery.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, entry of Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, obvious facts in this court, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted that they interfere with the sub-lease contract and deprived the opportunity to recover the premium, by failing to give consent to sub-lease the commercial building of this case, contrary to the terms of the contract in this case.
As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 14,00,000 in total, including KRW 6,000,000 for the six-month period from April 2015 to October 2015, and KRW 8,000,000 for the premium paid by the Plaintiff to F, and KRW 14,00,000 for the premium paid by the Plaintiff to F, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,00,000 and delay damages.
(B) On March 1, 200, the defendants' overlapping relationship seems to have been jointly asserted by the defendants, and the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and witness G alone interfered with the sub-lease contract to be concluded by the plaintiff.
In addition to the contents stipulated in the instant special agreement clause, the Defendants are obligated to implement the consent procedure separately.