손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. Fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition [based for recognition], entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10, 12, 13, 15 evidence, entry of Eul evidence 1 through 18 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. On June 23, 2011, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant one column of the first floor store of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) with the trade name “E tourer” as the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 550,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 18,000,000 from June 18, 201 to June 17, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
On July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff registered “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu F” as the location of the “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu F” and registered its business.
B. On January 9, 2012, without the Defendant’s consent, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to entrust the operation of “E tourer” from January 10, 2012 to June 30, 2014. From January 10, 2012, D operated a travel agent with the trade name “E tourer” at the instant store.
D paid directly to the Defendant the monthly rent of 50,000 won on April 14, 2012, the monthly rent of 550,000 won on April 18, 2012, and the monthly rent of 550,000 won on May 2012.
C. On April 2012, the Defendant was scheduled to sell the instant building to Police Officers D, so the Defendant was informed to the effect that the extension of the instant lease agreement is impossible.
D Then, the plaintiff and the store of this case were discussed about the fact that it is difficult to extend the lease term of this case.
On May 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) sold the instant building and its land to G on June 15, 2012, with a fixed date of KRW 752,550,500,000, the remainder payment and delivery date; (b) sold the instant building to the Plaintiff and D on May 16, 2012; and (c) sent each written statement to the effect that it is impossible to extend the term of the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail.
D Content-certified mail reached May 17, 2012, but the content-certified mail against the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.