beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Where it is possible for the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant with the new lessee on January 5, 2016, from the Seoul Central District Court 2015Na4637, 4664 (Counterclaim) Litigation (hereinafter “previous Litigation”) to enter into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the new lessee on March 11, 2016, the Defendant would enter into a lease agreement with the lessee arranged by the Plaintiff.
However, if the terms of the lease satisfy all the following requirements or are more favorable than the following requirements:
50,000,000
(b) monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000;
(c) The lease term of 2 years or less is "the decision of this case";
Compulsory adjustment has been established with the content of this.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff arranged the Plaintiff to become a new lessee according to the instant decision, but the Defendant interfered with the conclusion of a lease agreement with such low doping, and the Plaintiff suffered losses from failure to receive KRW 150,000,000 for premiums that may be received from C due to the above obstruction act by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 150,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff as damages.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 11, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the overall purport of the film and pleading, the defendant’s each statement of evidence Nos. 7 through 10, and Nos. 13 alone did so as to interfere with the above.
It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 150,000,000, as alleged by the plaintiff due to the above interference acts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant on the ground that the defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 due to the defendant's obstruction of opportunity to recover premiums, but the previous lawsuit was filed.