beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나22549

손해배상

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2014, the Plaintiff, from C and D, leased the fourth-story building located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) as “10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and period of lease from April 29, 2014 to April 28, 2016.”

B. From April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff operated a plastic manufacturing business from around the instant underground floor.

C. The Defendant purchased the instant building from C, D, and October 1, 2014, and acquired ownership of the instant building on December 1, 2014, and succeeded to the status of the lessor against the Plaintiff.

From December 1, 2014, the Defendant performed remodeling works on the instant building from around December 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (Additional Number omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Defendant’s liability 1) If Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 6-2, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9-9, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to witness F’s testimony is added, many noise and dust were generated due to the remodeling construction of the building of this case, and waste was stored around the building. The first floor water pipe was destroyed during February 2015, and there was flood damage in the underground floor of this case. The plaintiff was difficult for the plaintiff to continue to conduct the business of manufacturing plastic products from the underground floor of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff transferred materials from around February 2015 to another place of business around March 21, 2015. The plaintiff, a lessee, transferred the materials to another place of business from around February 2015.) In full view of these facts, the plaintiff, who is the lessee, did not move to another place of business due to the remodeling project of this case to the plaintiff.