logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.04.29 2018가단69292
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 2008, the Plaintiff leased all five-story offices among the five-story buildings located in Daegu-gu D (hereinafter “instant building”) from C around May 27, 2008, and was handed over the said office around June 15, 2008.

From around that time, the Plaintiff used the above office as the office of the representative director or the in-house director company E (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

B. On September 15, 2017, the Defendant purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 13, 2017.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for change of the name of the lessor that consented to the change of the lessor’s name and the succession of the former lease terms.

C. On the outer wall of the fifth floor of the instant building, at least from Jun. 201 to Mar. 2013, 201, a banner was installed stating “factory, shopping district, land, housing, apartment building consultation” and “F” at least 1,00 square meters around 1,00 square meters around 3,00 square meters in sales and lease of a plastic book plant, and at least from Jun. 2014, there was no sign installed E on the outer wall of the fifth floor.

On November 2, 2017, the Defendant moved L club signboards to outer walls between the third and fourth floors of the instant building, and installed a signboard “G” on the outer wall of the fifth floor of the building (hereinafter “instant signboard”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 24, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 through 6 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 5, part of Gap evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the instant signboard was installed on the outer wall of the fifth floor of the instant building without the Plaintiff’s consent.

As a result, E’s customer who mainly entrusts E with the work via the Internet has no place of business or has only a business, thereby failing to request E’s construction work, by misunderstanding that there is no place of business or only a business.

arrow