beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.11.21 2014가단228357

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant asserted that he was punished in violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, etc. due to the employment of juveniles on January 29, 2012 without verifying the age of juveniles, while working as an employee in D in the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is an entertainment drinking club C2, operated by the Plaintiff.

Thus, the above summary

In relation to the room, the administrative disposition to revoke the business license was taken, and the room was not operated for about two years from April 17, 2012 to April 16, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages due to the discontinuance of business during that period.

A lessor of a room building is obligated to pay KRW 19,200,000 (80,000 per month, 24 months) in total, and KRW 20,80,000,00 for fire-fighting system installation expenses under fire-fighting-related regulations changed around April 2014, and KRW 10,000 for consolation money.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 23 and 24 of the judgment of the court below, although the defendant, who was an employee of the above entertainment tavern, was found to have been exposed to juveniles by hiring them, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the disposition of revocation of permission for the above entertainment tavern was taken due to such fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

(M) On January 29, 2012, the Plaintiff’s reply that the business license of the said entertainment drinking house cannot be confirmed based on the Defendant’s act of employing juveniles in the entertainment drinking club around January 29, 2012. Furthermore, after the revocation of the business license of the entertainment drinking club, the Plaintiff asserted that the total monthly rent paid by the Plaintiff for two years under the entertainment drinking club lease agreement was the amount of damages. However, it is difficult to deem that it was directly incurred due to the revocation of business license, and there is no evidence to prove that all monthly rent was paid during this period, and it cannot be recognized as the amount of damages.

In addition, the plaintiff does not engage in any business for two years.

참조조문