beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was operated in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant, while operating the exhauster shop at the above place, removed the Plaintiff’s restaurant signboard and then decided to restore the Plaintiff’s signboard to its original state.
However, the Defendant, at around August to September, 2014, did not remove the Plaintiff’s signboard and did not run away again.
As a result, the plaintiff has reduced the operating profit to more than half.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for totaling KRW 24 million per month during the 12-month period from August 2014 to August 2015.
B. The Plaintiff’s restaurant and the Defendant’s exhauster shop are located adjacent to the first floor of the third floor building in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant’s exhauster shop are located in the corner of the building, and the two sides adjoin the road. The Plaintiff installed a protruding signboard in the part of the corner of the building that was installed before the Defendant operated the exhauster shop, separate from the signboards installed on the restaurant entrance. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff’s protruding signboard on July 2014 for the construction of a rectangular protruding signboard of the exhauster room and installed again. Since then, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff’s protruding signboard on July 21, 2014 by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Plaintiff’s protruding signboard was removed as a voluntary removal of his protruding signboard on July 21, 2014 by taking into account the overall purport of each film and video number No. 1, No. 2, 3, and No. 1 through 6 (a).
As such, the Plaintiff’s two restaurant signboards were removed, so there was a possibility of sales, and the Plaintiff also submitted a written statement (No. 4 No. 4-1, No. 2) to the effect that sales were made.
However, whether the sale has decreased due to the removal of the Plaintiff’s protruding signboards or not.