beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,600,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 9, 2013 to June 13, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 301, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the first floor store (hereinafter “instant store”) among the third floor buildings located in Gyeongnam-si (hereinafter “instant building”) with the owner’s husband E without monthly rent of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 from the owner’s husband E. The lease contract was renewed later, and the last lease term expires on September 30, 2014.
B. The Plaintiff registered the instant store in the name of F, an employee, and operated a cafeteria with expenses of KRW 24 million, which was spent by the Plaintiff. On November 201, the Plaintiff subleted the instant store to G around November 201.
G intends to put up the signboard “H” at the instant store and put a folklore, but failed to carry on business as a relation where the business registration in the name of F was not cancelled.
C. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant purchased the instant building from D on condition that he succeeds to a lessor status under a lease agreement for the instant store. From August 6, 2013 to August 9, 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the interior of the instant store, and sold them after receiving KRW 600,000 from the Recycling Center.
On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, and the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million (No. 2015 High Court Decision No. 2015 High Court Decision No. 6525), which became final and conclusive around that time, on the following grounds:
From August 6, 2013 to September 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) disposed of the goods of the Plaintiff by taking them back to a park, such as three influenite air conditioners, one influor, one influor, and one influor, which were kept on the ground that the Plaintiff’s store was not handed over; and (b) the Plaintiff arbitrarily removed the interior language installed at the expense of the amount equivalent to KRW 24 million in the market price while the lease was made by the Plaintiff.