beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendant is the representative of the “D Motor Vehicle Sales Company” located in the D Motor Vehicle Sales Complex (hereinafter “F Motor Vehicle Sales Complex”), and the representative of the said trading complex, who is entrusted with the management of the said trading complex by E. The Plaintiff is a person who, from August 1, 2015, leases part of the above D Motor Vehicle Sales Complex (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and operates the F Motor Vehicle Sales Company.
Around September 23, 2016, the Defendant was prosecuted for the crime of the crime of interference with business in which the Plaintiff had committed a crime of interference with business (hereinafter “instant crime of interference with business”), which caused the Plaintiff to not use the watchkeeping room, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2017Ma418), and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on December 1, 2017, which became final and conclusive as of December 1, 2017.
(C) The lease contract of this case was terminated on May 23, 2017, on the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that G Co., Ltd. (the representative E; hereinafter “G”) operating the instant automobile complex had suffered damages due to a tort, such as obstruction of business, etc. and filed a counterclaim (Seoul District Court Decision 2017No2481). On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had suffered damages due to a tort, such as obstruction of business, etc. (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da106131 (main lawsuit), 2017Gadan0645 (Counterclaim))). On the other hand, the lease contract of this case was partially winning the principal lawsuit on the premise that the lease contract of this case was terminated on May 23, 2017, or that there was insufficient reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had suffered damages due to a tort, and it was finalized on November 8, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.