beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court was presented.
Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the removal of 4-3-6 of the judgment of the first instance and the addition of the judgment as to the claim for consolation money added by the plaintiff in this court to the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff acquired the instant possession by unlawful means, such as destroying locks of the instant store, and disposed of the facilities owned by the Plaintiff to be used by other tenants. The Plaintiff interfered with the Plaintiff’s failure to have an opportunity to recover the premium, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered mental loss.
Therefore, the defendants are obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 100 million and delay damages to each plaintiff.
B. In general, in a case where a property right is infringed by a tort committed by another person, etc., the mental suffering shall be deemed to have been recovered from the compensation for such property damage. Thus, if there was an irrecoverable mental suffering from the compensation for property damage, this shall be a damage due to special circumstances, and if the perpetrator knew or could have known such circumstance, he/she may claim consolation money for such damage.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da82507 Decided March 18, 2004, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s interest infringed upon by the Defendants’ act itself is property rights, such as Plaintiff’s facilities and opportunity to recover premiums. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to compensate the Plaintiff for property damage due to the Defendants’ act.