손해배상등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the allegations that the plaintiffs have repeated in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Claims for damages due to unlawful acts;
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs had already known that they had possession or use of the leased portion of this case by taking over the business rights of adult call text from I and J (hereinafter “I, etc.”), but committed tort against I, etc. subject to the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession.
Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the tort as above.
B. It is true that the Defendant Steering Committee filed an application against I on June 20, 2012 for provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of the leased portion of this case against I, etc., and subsequently executed provisional disposition on July 20, 2012.
However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone, including the testimony of the witness I of the party 5, 10-5, 10-5, 10-10, 10-2, is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs occupied and used the leased part of this case from I before the execution of the above provisional disposition, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' above claim based on this premise is without merit without further review.
Even if the plaintiffs had already been occupying and using the leased portion of this case prior to the execution of the above provisional disposition, the execution of the provisional disposition constitutes a tort only when the defendants intentionally or negligently executed the provisional disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da35461, Oct. 11, 2002); and in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 10 and Eul evidence 7’s overall purport of pleading and arguments.