beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나53050

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's preliminary claim added at the trial, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this court should explain this part of the judgment concerning the claim for damages on property due to the removal of goods are the same as the part concerning the plaintiff's claim against the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the claim of consolation money due to the intrusion of a structure

A. On August 6, 2012, the defendant acquired the ownership of each of the above houses of the loan of this case from E, and the plaintiff occupied and used the above houses of the loan of this case as a factory and the Cdong underground as a warehouse prior to acquiring the ownership of each of the above houses of the loan of this case. The defendant demanded the plaintiff to remove the plaintiff's goods in the above Adong underground and C Dong underground, but the defendant did not comply with the request. However, around October 3, 2012, the defendant mobilized the work seal of the plaintiff and taken them out to the outside without permission, and the defendant removed the plaintiff's goods owned by the plaintiff from each of the above houses of this case from the above underground houses of this case. Since the defendant opened the lock door of each of the above houses of this case at the time when the goods owned by the plaintiff were shipped to the outside, the defendant was obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff for mental harm caused by the above summary order which became final and conclusive by the defendant's unlawful act [the defendant's mental harm in this case's above 3100 million won.

Furthermore, we examine the amount of consolation money, and even if each of the underground rooms of this case was owned by the defendant, the plaintiff occupied it without permission, and the defendant did not intrude into each of the underground rooms of this case as above.