beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the changed claim in exchange between the trial are dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged to the purport of the entire pleadings and facts without dispute:
The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the 2nd floor officetels (hereinafter “instant store”) among the buildings of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Officetel (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is the head of the management office of the instant building.
B. Around 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to D, and the Defendant did not pay management expenses to D, and from July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff taken a full-time measure against the instant store from around 15, 2014.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) interfered with the lessee’s business by taking measures for cutting off the instant store without permission from July 2, 2014 to October 6, 2016; (b) caused the Plaintiff to incur losses equivalent to KRW 54,50,000,00 in total, monthly rent (1.1 million per month) and management expenses (i.e., management expenses) during the said period; (c) loss of the Plaintiff’s chair in the underground parking lot; (d) loss of the Plaintiff’s chair in the underground parking lot; and (e) loss of the market price of KRW 1,00,000 by destroying four parcels on the small wave eight and four pages; and (c) loss incurred to the Plaintiff on August 4, 2015, causing the Plaintiff to incur expenses, such as labor costs and freight charges, etc.; and (d) loss to the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s late payment charge under the influence of force on the part of the Plaintiff on June 26, 2016.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 24 million among the damages incurred by the said tort, ② the total amount of KRW 1.57 million, ④ the total amount of damages incurred by the tort or unjust enrichment, ④ KRW 29.77 million, and the damages incurred by the tort or unjust enrichment.
3. The Defendant asserts that there was an agreement on the withdrawal of the lawsuit with the Plaintiff, and that the lawsuit of this case is lawful.
According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 9, E representing the steering committee of the plaintiff and the building of this case shall be September 2016.