beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.11.07 2018가단117336

손해배상(기)

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 October 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million; and (c) from November 2, 2015 to November 1, 2018, the lease period of KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff.

B. In order to collect the premium of KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff’s transfer of business to the Plaintiff’s new lessee of the instant commercial building in order to obtain payment of the premium of KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff known the Defendant around March 2018. However, the Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s intention not to conclude a lease agreement with the new lessee.

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary refusal of this case”). C.

Then, the Plaintiff introduced G to become a new lessee of the instant commercial building on August 2018 and sought to recover the premium of KRW 60 million from the Defendant. However, the Defendant, like the Defendant, refused to enter into a lease agreement with G.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second rejection of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's refusal and second refusal of the first and second refusal of this case constitute an act obstructing the collection of the premium under Article 10-4 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter "the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act"), and that the defendant should pay damages (the amount of the premium that the plaintiff should have received from G, and the amount of the premium that the plaintiff should have received, and the amount of the premium at the time when the premium was paid, KRW 60 million) to the plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view the first and second refusal of the instant case as an act of obstructing the collection of premiums under Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, and it is different from others.