beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.24 2016가단51420

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2007, C leased Nos. 308 and 309 of the three-story commercial buildings located in Grand City D from Grand City Co., Ltd., and entered into a contract on October 20, 2010 with the Defendant, a new owner, to lease the deposit of KRW 308 KRW 10 million, KRW 500,000,000, KRW 309,000, and KRW 500,000,000,000 per month.

The duration of each lease agreement was set on October 19, 201.

B. On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 310 units of the above commercial building 308 and 309 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) from the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant thereto on October 22, 2010, and succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant store as a lessee.

C. On October 27, 2010, the Defendant drafted a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that “When a cafeteria leased at the instant store intends to later move to another gate of the same commercial building, it is confirmed that the Defendant will not grant a lease to the gate owned by the Defendant.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 10 evidence, Eul 6 evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant violated the prohibition of alternative leasing of the instant store, and thus, the Defendant should pay KRW 97,554,00 to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.

In other words, while selling the instant store to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed not to lease the “Ecafeteria” which was operating in the instant store to another store owned by the Defendant.

However, on October 201, the Defendant violated its agreement and leased the store so that the “E restaurant” can be transferred from the store of this case to 305,306 owned by the Defendant, and even thereafter, the E restaurant is operated by the Defendant from 105, 106, and 107.

The plaintiff due to the defendant's violation of the agreement shall be the sum of the rent for the store of this case from October 201 to April 2016.