beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On January 13, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the principal office, office, etc. of the Egypted Egypted Egypted in the name of Defendant C and Defendant B, the agent of Defendant B; (b) concluded between January 13, 2013 and January 12, 2015; and (c) paid the Defendants KRW 14,400,000 for monthly rent without a deposit (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (d) paid the Defendants KRW 14,40,000 for monthly rent.
B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 7,200,000,000, and around January 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the instant pension.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts in the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff were explicitly renewed, and the term of lease was expired on January 12, 2016. However, the defendants unilaterally forced remodeling construction works, and interfered with the plaintiff's business, such as going forward before the instant pen, etc. from October 10, 2015. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to conduct pen business for three months from the time when the term of lease expires until January 12, 2016. Thus, the defendants are jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff for business damage 2,928,203 won.
In addition, Defendant C demanded on November 7, 2015 to use the instant pen, but was refused due to the Plaintiff’s refusal to use the pen, and Defendant C committed an unlawful act, such as destroying the pentine of the instant pentine with F, etc. and cutting off all the keyss. Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for consolation money of five million won for the said unlawful act.
Judgment
First, the Defendants unilaterally performed construction work and interfered with the Plaintiff’s business.
We examine whether Defendant C committed an unlawful act, such as damage to Plaintiff’s property and obstruction of business.
According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 11, the pension of this case is stated.