손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 2, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, and with respect to the part of the 1st floor of Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”), Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, including KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, monthly rent of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 20,000, monthly rent of KRW 250,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,500,000.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
After the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff operated a childcare center on the first floor of the instant building, and a private teaching institute on the second floor.
C. The instant lease agreement was renewed several times, and the Plaintiff removed from the first and second floors of the instant building around November 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows, and the defendant asserts that he should pay to the plaintiff a sum of KRW 67,986,452 (= KRW 50,00,000 + KRW 2,986,452 + KRW 5,000 + KRW 10,000 + KRW 10,000).
The Plaintiff, around October 2016, prior to the termination of the instant lease agreement, decided to transfer the first-class childcare center and the second-class private teaching institute facilities to D in a premium of KRW 50 million, but the Defendant interfered with the collection of the premium, thereby incurring a loss equivalent to KRW 50 million.
B. From 2006 to 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,986,452 for environmental charges and charges for causing traffic congestion, which the Defendant, who is the building owner, should bear.
C. In order to operate a childcare center, urban gas facilities are essential. The Plaintiff spent 5,000,000 urban gas installation costs because the Defendant did not install urban gas.
On January 2013, the third floor building owned by the defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 10,00,000 due to flooding of real estate leased by the defendant.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2, whether to interfere with the collection of premiums, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the delivery of the building as Seoul Western District Court 2015da18117, following the Plaintiff’s delay in payment.