손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:
(a) KRW 330,721,017 and this shall be from January 22, 2016 to June 7, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. Status 1 of the parties concerned) The Plaintiff is the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Ground F building (hereinafter “F building”).
2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff leased the rooftop and set up an electronic display board on the above rooftop (hereinafter referred to as the “instant electronic display board”).
(2) Defendant A branch of the company (hereinafter “Defendant branch”) is an organization consisting of its subordinate employees, and Defendant D is the head of the branch, who is the representative of the Defendant branch.
3 Defendant B and C are subordinate workers of G Co., Ltd.
B. From June 11, 2015, Defendant B and C demanded the possession of the instant electronic display board and the installation of banner, and Defendant B and C demanded the conversion of the permanent employees of G non-regular workers from June 11, 2015, Defendant B and C without permission to occupy the instant electronic display board and install a banner with the content of “H”.
Accordingly, most of the electric displays of this case were placed by the above banner.
C. After the Defendant Branch and Defendant D’s action, the Defendant Branch opened an assembly to support the above possession of Defendant B and C in front of the F building under the direction of Defendant D, the head of the headquarters, and prevented the Plaintiff’s representative director and employees’ access to the F building to be listed on the rooftop for the instant electronic display board management.
In addition, in addition, the branch members and Defendant D et al. of the Defendant Branch moved to the F building rooftop without permission, and made verbal abuse and assault to the Plaintiff’s employees during that process.
Furthermore, Defendant D et al., along with media reporters, has been unauthorized on the F building rooftop.
The Plaintiff entered into an advertising service contract concluded by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligations on the instant electronic sign board, and thereafter, concluded an advertising service contract with the trustor of the instant electronic sign board to reproduce the advertising image on a total of 11 advertising parties, at the time when the Plaintiff commenced possession of the instant electronic sign board.
However, due to the possession of Defendant B and C, the Plaintiff started from June 11, 2015.