1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following reasons. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 제1심판결문 제6면 제9, 10행 중 “을 제10호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 영상만으로는” “을 제11, 12, 15호증(가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재, 을 제10, 13, 14, 16호증의 각 영상만으로는” ▣ 제1심판결문 제8면 제17행의 “(3) 손해배상액의 산정” “(3) 손해배상액의 산정 및 제한” ▣ 제1심판결문 제9면 제2 내지 5행 중 “감정인 K의 감정결과에 의하면 임대차가 종료한 2017. 10. 20. 기준 이 사건 상가의 권리금이 43,327,000원(= 유형재산 16,250,000원 무형재산 27,077,000원)으로 평가된 사실이 인정되므로, 손해배상액은 위 감정평가액으로 보아야 한다” "제1심감정인 K의 감정결과에 의하면 임대차가 종료한 2017. 10. 20. 기준 이 사건 상가의 권리금이 43,327,000원[= 유형재산 16,250,000원(= 시설장치 11,750,000원 비품 4,500,000원) 무형재산 27,077,000원]으로 평가된 사실이 인정된다.

However, in the case of compensation for damages due to interference with the collection of premiums, the basic ideology of the Damage Compensation Act, which provides fair burden of damages, may be applied to limitation liability for damages in accordance with the principle of fairness. The above facts of recognition, the statements in Eul 11, 12, Eul 10, Eul 13, and 14, each image of evidence in the court of first instance, the result of the appraisal by the appraiser in the court of first instance, the results of fact inquiry about the appraiser in the court of first instance, and the following circumstances, i.e., ① the above equipment 4,50,000 can be taken out from the commercial building in this case for the same kind of business and used for the same kind of business, and ② the commercial building in this case did not collapse, but it was a roof structure.