손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim even if the plaintiff submitted additional evidences in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted by this court
(1) The main issue of the instant case is whether the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the obstruction of collecting premiums. The submitted evidence alone is justifiable in the first instance court that determined that the Defendants refused to enter into a lease agreement with H without justifiable grounds, or that the Plaintiff obstructed the Plaintiff from receiving premiums from H.). Therefore, the reasoning for the instant case’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the dismissal or addition of the following, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Each “I” of the 3th sentence 15, 7th sentence 1, 2, 8th sentence 5, 8, and 11 of the judgment of the first instance shall be read as “H”.
Part 5 of the fifth decision of the first instance shall be deleted.
After the 7th sentence of the first instance court's decision, "In addition, the transfer contract of this case is deemed as premium contract under the Commercial Building Lease Act, unlike the opinion of the 12th sentence."
The following matters shall be added after the 8th judgment of the first instance:
4) If a lessor clearly expresses his/her intent not to conclude a lease agreement even if he/she acted as a new lessee without justifiable grounds, such refusal by a lessor constitutes an act of refusal stipulated in Article 10-4(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Act even if the lessee did not act as a new lessee, and the lessee is entitled to claim damages due to interference with the collection of premiums against the lessor pursuant to Article 10-4(3) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da28426, Jul. 4, 2019).