Requirements for recognizing damage as the fee of the store for sale and exhibition of goods due to interference with the use of the store used as the warehouse

In a case where the door of the above store was obstructed by installing a series of large-scale office building structures to be used as a warehouse in part of the common use wall of the commercial building owned by Eul, etc., which is divided into Gap, etc., if it is recognized that Gap was unable to use the said store as a sales or exhibition store of general goods and suffered damages, first of all, if Eul was immediately removed the said structure at Gap's request, it should be recognized that Gap could have been able to remodel the said store into a sales or exhibition store and use the said structure.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

1.3.5 Gao-dong Building Management Association, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2732 delivered on February 20, 1987

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the lower judgment: (a) the Defendant, an organization consisting of 1 to 300 sectional owners of the first and fourth floors of the building (A) 1 to 4, around April 197; (b) the structure of the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ store (at the time it was used as a warehouse) as part of the walls; (c) the Plaintiff requested the removal of the said structure to use the said ○○○○○ store as a store; (d) the Defendant agreed to remove the said structure at an interval of 1 to 6, and leased it to another person by using the said structure as an office; and (e) the Defendant removed the said structure from 1 to 80,000 if it was decided that the said 1 to 6,000 stores were removed from 1 to 300,000,000 won of the above 1 to 186,000,0000 won of the building; and (e) the said structure was removed from 1 to 97,06,06,014, and04,00.

2. However, in order to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Plaintiff’s failure to use the instant store (ware) owned by it as a store for sale of general goods, it should first be premised on the fact that the Defendant could, at the Plaintiff’s request, use the instant store (ware) as a store for sale exhibition by remodeling the instant store (ware) into the shop for sale exhibition if the Defendant immediately removed the said structure.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Judgment), around June 29, 1983, each sectional owner of the 4th floor above the 4th floor was organized to develop the 4th floor of the above 4th floor, and applied the reduction rate of 16.5 percent out of the average number of their respective possessions and to improve the store by installing various facilities such as fire prevention facilities and crime prevention facilities, and it was revealed that the plaintiff did not participate in the above development plan because only the plaintiff among the sectional owners of the 4th floor did not participate in the above reduction rate. In addition, according to the records, even after the plaintiff completed the removal and execution of the above structure, it was difficult for the defendant to remodel the building of this case without the consent of the joint management committee (the defendant is an organization different from the defendant). Thus, it is reasonable for the plaintiff to remove the building of this case by altering the building of this case as the building of this case without the use of the store of this case (the building of this case).

Therefore, even though the court below should have seen the reason why the plaintiff could not take advantage of the store (ware) of this case as the shop for the exhibition of the sale of goods, the court below's decision that the plaintiff was unable to take advantage of the store (ware) as the shop for the exhibition of the sale of goods because of the defendant's above structure, and that the plaintiff was unable to take advantage of the above store as the shop for the exhibition of the sale of goods, the court below's decision that the whole amount equivalent to the rent as the shop for the exhibition of the sale of goods was not sufficiently understood as the plaintiff's loss. Therefore, the argument that points out

3. Therefore, without determining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)