beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,969,00 and KRW 3,00,00 among them.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the relevant part, except where “A evidence No. 1-2” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed as “A evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2” under Article 16 of the judgment of the first instance.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant's intrusion on the above leased object possessed by the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent, damaged locks installed therein, and obstructed its business, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort.
B. 1) The scope of damages shall be calculated based on the profits actually earned by a person who runs a private business related to the lost profits according to the ratio of the profit portion arising from the individual contribution of the business owner based on the profits actually earned. However, in the absence of objective data, the amount of damages shall be calculated based on the calculation of the amount equivalent to the remuneration, i.e., the amount equivalent to the remuneration where a person with the same academic background, career, management ability, etc. as the victim is employed, by taking into account the size, management type, the number of employees, management performance, etc. of the relevant company, and by reasonable and probable methods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1439, Feb. 23, 1996). In addition, Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the amount of damages shall be determined as the amount of damages where it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damages in light of the nature of the case.
In this case, from around 1987, the plaintiff had been engaged in the business of selling anti-child families with husband C.