손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "No. 7, 2006" of the first instance court No. 4, No. 1, 2006, "No. 7, 2006" is "No. 7, 2016," and "No. 3 and No. 4, "No. 103," of the fourth, third and fourth, and "No. 130," respectively, and the reasoning of the first instance court's decision is as stated in the first instance court's decision, except for addition to the following paragraph (2), since the plaintiffs and the defendants' additional assertion are the same as the reasons for the second instance's decision. Thus,
(1) The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted to the first instance court and this court are examined, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
A. As to the termination date of the period for calculating damages and management fees equivalent to the rent, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were liable to remove the instant stairs, etc. on or around February 10, 2017, but the Defendants’ failure to remove the instant stairs, etc. on or around June 1, 2017, and the Defendants’ failure to remove the instant stairs, etc. on the building ledger under subparagraph 130 of the same Article was removed. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the instant stairs, etc. were delivered to the Plaintiffs on February 10, 2017, not on February 10, 2017, but on June 1, 2017, not on February 10, 2017. However, the instant stairs, etc. were consistent with subparagraphs 130 and 131 of the same Article, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants were interfering with the removal of the instant stairs, etc. on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no reason to deem otherwise.