(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.02 2015가합33

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.02 2015가합33

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs decided to newly construct urban-type housing (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”), and contracted the construction of the said new construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) to enzed Construction Co., Ltd.

B. The Defendants are the owners of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F land and its ground buildings adjacent to the Plaintiffs’ land.

C. The head of Gangnam-gu Office approved the use of the instant building on September 30, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3

2. The plaintiffs' claims

A. Unlike the fact from February 28, 201 to September 9, 2013, the Defendants filed a civil petition with the Gangnam-gu Office unjustly over about 20 occasions with the purport that they suffered damage from the construction of the instant building, and demanded the Plaintiffs to reach an agreement on an amount of money.

In addition, it was demanded that the head of Gangnam-gu who is the approval authority for the use of the building of this case should not approve the use of the building of this case.

The new construction of the instant building was completed on August 30, 201, and the Plaintiffs submitted an application for approval of use to the Gangnam-gu Office around that time. The head of Gangnam-gu Office did not approve the use of the instant building due to continuous civil complaints by the Defendants.

The head of Gangnam-gu Office approved the use of the instant building on September 30, 2013 after two years from the completion of the instant building.

B. The Plaintiffs were unable to rent the instant building for two years from September 30, 201 to September 30, 2013, which was after the completion of the instant building due to the Defendants’ unfair civil petition filing. As such, the Plaintiffs did not obtain any profit equivalent to rent, since they were unable to rent the instant building for two years from September 30, 201 to September 30, 201.

Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the rent that the plaintiffs could have obtained during that period.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017구단5018

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.07 2015구합7871

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.18 2013가합72812

-서울행정법원 2015.05.21 2015구합50238

-울산지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가단9207