손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the network (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the entire E, E, 1, and 2 levels (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”), KRW 150 million per month, and KRW 8 million per month of rent (in addition, a contract with KRW 4 million per month as a matter of tax, etc., payment on July, 7, 2015, value-added tax is separate, but a contract with KRW 4 million per month as a matter of tax, etc.) and registered as the location of the instant real estate.
B. In accordance with the instant lease agreement and agreement with D, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4.4 million out of the rent (in the case of a side agreement, the amount plus value added tax of KRW 4 million) into a new bank account under D’s name, and KRW 4 million into a bank account under D’s spouse’s name.
C. D’s death on July 23, 2017, and the Defendants, as their children, succeeded to the instant real estate by agreement and division.
On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff handed over the instant real estate to the Defendants. The Defendants, after deducting overdue rent from the lease deposit, returned KRW 118,66,66,66 to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On May 18, 2018, the Defendants asserted that the instant lease agreement had been concluded, the Plaintiff demanded that the amount of KRW 9 million, which was remarkably superior to the previous rent, would be KRW 10 million, and refused to enter into a lease agreement with the subsequent lessee arranged by the Plaintiff without justifiable grounds. This constitutes an act that interferes with the opportunity to recover the premium corresponding to Article 10-4(1)3 and 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.
Therefore, the defendants jointly paid premium collection to the plaintiff to the previous lessee for damages caused by interference with the collection of premium collection 40,000.