logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.10.29 2013다212790
손해배상(기)
Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The possession of an object refers to an objective relationship that can be said to be in a factual control of a person under the social concept, and thus, in order to be in de facto control, it is not necessarily necessary to control an object physically and practically. In light of the time and spatial relationship between the object and a person, principal right relationship, possibility of interference with another person, etc., the determination should be made in conformity with the social concept. As such, whether the object loses de facto control should be determined in accordance with the social concept as seen above.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da74949, Jan. 27, 2012). 2. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the adopted evidence.

On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant building D located in Busan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) concluded an agreement between B and the Plaintiff on March 22, 201 with the overall authority over all revenues, expenditures, personnel management, etc. of “E” (hereinafter “E”), which were located in the instant building, to operate the instant building for one year.

B. Since then, a dispute arose between the Plaintiff and B regarding the operation of the instant pharmacy, and B demanded the Plaintiff to leave the instant building by June 24, 2011, but the Plaintiff rejected the request.

C. B, on June 24, 2011, found the instant pharmacy at the morning and demanded the Plaintiff to leave the said pharmacy, and then arbitrarily replaced the entrance doors of the stairs room at the entrance of the instant pharmacy, among the instant buildings, and the locking devices of the entrance doors of 2, 3, and 4 floors, from among the instant buildings.

The Plaintiff concluded a security service contract with the Defendant for the instant pharmacy, but around 13:00 on June 24, 201, the Plaintiff was established by the Defendant.

arrow