beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
The Defendant used or disposed of the signboard owned by the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s permission and thereby inflicted damage on the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages equivalent to KRW 4,300,000 for the signboard construction cost, KRW 600,000 for LED electronic displays, KRW 300,000 for EED electronic displays, and KRW 100,000 for EED electric circuits, and KRW 4,300,000 for EEM, wind, wind, and wind, and wind, and the delay damages therefrom.
Judgment
According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, Gap's 1, 4, 5, 7 through 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 1, 4, 5, 7 through 9, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including a branch number) and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (hereinafter "the store of this case") and Eul's whole, the plaintiff, while running the store of this case with the trade name Eul's trade name, installed four signboards and LED electronic sign boards in the store of this case and installed the house of books, books, wests, air conditioners, and scoods inside the store of this case. Since February 2018, the defendant, while running the business from the store of this case with the trade name "F," part of the above 4 presses, etc., including the above LED, electronic sign boards, and air conditioners, removed each, and discarded 2 doctors, etc.
However, the following facts and circumstances, which can be known by the overall purport of Gap's statements, Eul's evidence Nos. 8, 10, and 11, and Eul's statements and arguments, i.e., ① on Nov. 10, 2017, the plaintiff offered that the defendant purchase 6 million won of the signboards located in the store of this case, including the four signboards, ELED electronic sign boards, air conditioners, line winders, electronic recognitions, books, and other chairs (hereinafter "goods of this case"), while making the first call with the defendant on Nov. 10, 2017, and the defendant did not accept them. After that, the defendant offered two million won in the currency of December 13, 2017, and one million won in the currency of December 26, 2017, but the defendant rejected each of the above proposals.