손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff leased the Daegu Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court’s underground floor and operated a different division of “D”.
B. The Plaintiff, upon the occurrence of an accident involving the death of his/her child, was unable to operate a multi-faceted door to E, the owner of the building, and was waiting for the multi-faceted door due to the key in the remaining lease period.
C. However, without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendant arbitrarily uses the equipment owned by the Plaintiff, such as air conditioners, air conditioners, tablers, tea teas, etc.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the market price of the equipment owned by the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, it is recognized that the plaintiff operated a different unit of the trade name of "D" by setting lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million from Eul on Jan. 5, 1994 to lease deposit amount of KRW 1,00,000,000. The plaintiff suspended multi-level operation around 2004 and reported the closure of business on Mar. 21, 2005. The defendant, on Dec. 3, 2014, determined the lease deposit amount of KRW 3 million for the lease deposit of the Jung-gu Seoul metropolitan City's underground floor No. 300,000 and monthly rent amount of KRW 300,000,000 and operated the "F."
B. Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant’s equipment owned by the Plaintiff was used at will while operating the above FFC, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely by the descriptions of health room, Gap evidence 1-1-3, and Gap evidence 4-1 through 20, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the Defendant’s arbitrary use of the Plaintiff’s equipment is without merit without any need to examine the remainder of the claim.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.