(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.11.11 2015가단16625

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.11.11 2015가단16625

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 16,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 20, 2015 to November 11, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) between February 26, 2015 and February 22:00, 1:200, between the Plaintiff’s business and the next day, without permission by the Plaintiff’s business operator, into the Do private house or store located in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant store”) and thereby obstructing the Plaintiff’s business by removing the Plaintiff’s equipment and goods for sale from the building; and (b) the fact that the said Do private house or building, including the instant store, was handed over to E does not conflict between the parties, or recognized by the entry in the evidence No. 7.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the tort obstructing the plaintiff's business.

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of damages to be compensated, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16 million (excluding KRW 6 million reduced from KRW 22,000) as the fixtures to the Sublease, while driving the store in this case to the Sublease, is recognized by the statement of evidence No. 5. As such, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 16 million to the Plaintiff as the damages that the Defendant carried the store in this case and made it unusable for the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff made a monthly profit of KRW 3,50,000,000 except for the tea while operating the instant store, and the Plaintiff failed to make profits from the Defendant’s business interference during the remainder lease period (20 months). As such, the Plaintiff sought 70,000,000 won as compensation for business suspension during that lease period, but the Defendant removed or damaged the equipment of the instant store, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from running the business by delivering the instant store to another person.

Even if the plaintiff can continue to operate the business by leasing another shop, the plaintiff can seek compensation for the suspension of business against the defendant as ordinary damages only for the period until the other shop is leased.

However, the plaintiff's interference with the business of the defendant is about the necessary period to rent a new store.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.11.26 2019가단2311

-인천지방법원 2017.07.11 2016가단229316

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.05.30 2017가단54512

-서울남부지방법원 2020.12.18 2020나57576

-대법원 1987. 11. 10. 선고 87다카1405 판결