손해배상(기)
1. The appeal filed by the Lessee and the claim filed by the Lessee additionally in this court is dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows.
On the three pages of the judgment of the first instance, the "Counterclaim Defendant" shall be amended to "Counterclaim Defendant".
The five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revised as follows.
The "21,593,500 won" in the first instance judgment shall be amended to "20,739,000 won" in the second instance judgment.
The following shall be added to 8 pages 2 of the first instance judgment:
A person shall be appointed.
C. The gist of the allegation in the counterclaim 1) from March 2017 to December 12 of the same year, the counterclaim Defendant used the electricity of the counterclaim 1 without permission. Since the amount equivalent to about 20% of the electricity charges imposed on the counterclaim 1 during the same period is the electricity charges used by the counterclaim 1 without permission, the counterclaim Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay 339,138 won and damages for delay to the counterclaim 1 as set forth in the following table. 2) It is insufficient to recognize that the counterclaim Defendant used the electricity of the counterclaim 26,32 only by the descriptions or images of the evidence No. 26, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the above assertion by the Lessee is without merit.
1) The gist of the counterclaim’s claim of consolation money is that the lessor, as a lessor, did not guarantee the contractual failure and the right of leased property through a transaction (the office destruction and housing intrusion, failure to perform the duty to repair water leakage, failure to use the dam electricity without permission, and clean the stairs, and did not manage the office without obtaining the approval of the counterclaim, but did not perform the duty to receive the unfair management fee of KRW 200,000 won per month, but the counterclaim exercised the right immediately without paying the rent for three months.
The counterclaim defendant asserted only the right without fulfilling his responsibilities and obligations, which is typical A.