beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,30,967 as well as 5% per annum from February 6, 2018 to May 20, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant, the franchisor, and “C” for the operation of restaurants, along with the agreement, part of the second floor of the D ground buildings in the Namnam-gun, Namnam-gun, that the Plaintiff would use as the place of business (the part on the right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right
(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 10 million for the franchise fee of KRW 10 million, and KRW 210 million for the interior works, and the Defendant completed the interior works over about 20 days in early September 2016, and the Plaintiff started operating the interior works at the instant store around that time.
3) During October 2016, the number of people was generated from the boundary line of the instant store, and the Defendant performed the repair work on October 26, 2016, and November 24, 2016, from December 21, 2016 to December 31, 2016. 4), the Plaintiff resumed the business at the instant store, and the number of people was leakageed from the boundary line of the instant store in the beginning of March 2017 to September 24, 2017.
5) In other words, the Plaintiff resumed the business at the instant store on January 2018, as water leakage took place on the side of the instant store, and therefore, the surface of the wall and the apartment floor installed between the main room and the main room of the instant store was contaminated by sucking on the water, or the ceiling and the walls of the instant store are broken down or polluted by the water. [No. 1 evidence, No. 3 evidence No. 1 to 14, and the result of the instant court’s on-site inspection, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the on-site inspection.
B. The following circumstances, i.e., the store of this case, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the above recognition and the appraiser E’s appraisal.