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
1..
The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, with regard to the plaintiff's assertion that this case is accepted by the court of first instance, since the part of "the scope of liability for damages of not more than 17.3." which is "the scope of liability for damages of not more than 17." of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article
3. Scope of liability for damages
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made due to the leakage of the store in the first floor of this case: (a) the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 12.1 million for the damages to the instant underground store; (b) the Plaintiff entered into a provisional contract with G as from January 1, 2013 to KRW 8 million for monthly rent of KRW 100 million; and (c) the Plaintiff did not conclude this contract due to the leakage of the store in the instant first floor of this case from January 1, 2013 to November 28, 2013, which is the date the judgment of the first floor of this case was rendered, at least KRW 50 million for at least ten months from November 28, 2013.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) According to the testimony by the witness F of the first instance trial, the appraisal result by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, and the purport of the entire pleadings, around August 2012, it can be acknowledged that around August 2012, 45 square meters of the ceiling and the wall part of the instant underground store was damaged, and that KRW 12.1 million was required for restoration to its original state. As such, due to the defects in water leakage in the instant first floor store, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above amount of KRW 12.1 million for the restoration to its original state. 2) First of all, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s argument regarding the fact that the instant contract was concluded as alleged by the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, and subparagraph 5-2 (Lease Agreement) and subparagraph 3 (No. 5-3 (No. 2) of the evidence of the evidence evidence submitted earlier.