손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. From November 4, 2011, the Plaintiff was a person who run a singing business by leasing the second floor of D-ground commercial building (hereinafter “instant store”) at Jinju-si, and the terms and conditions of the initial contract were KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 800,000, and November 3, 2014, but the said contract was explicitly renewed at the time of the expiration of the initial lease term.
Since then, the Defendants purchased the above building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 5, 2015. On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendants, who acquired ownership of the said building, as well as the Defendants, for deposit KRW 30,000,00, monthly rent KRW 905,270, and for the lease period until November 3, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On October 10, 2016, before the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff concluded a premium contract with KRW 20,000,000 for the premium of KRW 20,000 for the instant store and received KRW 1,00,000 for the instant store (hereinafter “the instant premium contract”). Thereafter, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the conclusion of the premium contract with E by telephone and content-certified mail, and arranged for a lease contract with E, but the Defendants refused to agree with E or to negotiate with new lease. Accordingly, upon the cancellation of the said premium contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,00,000 for the amount of the down payment to E.
C. After the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff removed from the instant store, and the Defendants remodeled the instant store with the repair cost of KRW 68,700,000, around November 2016, and directly operate a singing practice room until now.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that they refused to enter into a lease agreement with E without justifiable grounds and interfere with the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium.