손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Basic facts
A. (1) The Plaintiff was aware of the store with the mind to operate the house with the house with the mind of mind. However, on April 2017, C (the husband of the Defendant) who became aware of the fact, solicited D (the Plaintiff was divorced from the Plaintiff around 2014) to lease the building under construction of the Defendant.
(2) At the time, the Defendant couple newly built a commercial building on the land level E in the Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, but the Plaintiff and D agreed to enter into a lease agreement on the part of the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) with the Defendant couple’s oral finding around that time, with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and KRW 8 million in monthly rent.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). At the time, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff and D to the effect that “the instant store will be suitable for its original purpose for interior interior interior interior decoration construction.”
B. D’s interior interior interior interior interior interior works, such as kitchen, toilet, and ceiling, were conducted since around that time, D’s interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works of the instant store. During the construction process, it was argued that D’s interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works had a problem with D’s existing toilets and equipment installed during the construction process, or that “the construction is being delayed” or “the construction is delayed.
C. At the end of the above dispute over the cancellation of a lease agreement, the Plaintiff and D opened a restaurant with another store after leaving the instant store, and the Plaintiff and D as an arbitration, and D representing the Plaintiff and C representing the Defendant around July 2017 agreed that “The instant contract is reversed, and D does not require the Defendant to demand the cost of removal, etc. of the floor of the instant store instead of claiming the Defendant to cover the cost of removal, etc. of the waste on the floor of the instant store.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). Grounds for recognition: