beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,092,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 19, 2013 to May 12, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
In fact, the building of this case was newly constructed in Mapo City F and D (Ground 1-8, underground 1-4, hereinafter "the building of this case") in Mapo City F and Ga, and on February 18, 2002, the building of this case was sold by Gapo Development Co., Ltd.
In 2003, ENC entered into an agreement with H on the following terms:
(H agreed in the capacity of the representative director of H, but H and the Defendant joint representative director on June 25, 2013. ① The settlement amount related to the sale under the foregoing paragraph (1) shall be paid to H in the amount of KRW 1.5 billion, and as security, H in the process of completing the registration of ownership transfer on the 5-7th floor of the instant building, which can be substituted for lending public bath as security or selling it to a third party and receiving KRW 1.5 billion with the money. H in the process of operating the private bath on the 5-7th floor of the instant building, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor agreed to manage and operate the private bath or the management and operation authority around October 2005.
On March 20, 2007, the Plaintiff leased from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor the right to operate the said private letter or sugar store, bath, and the right to operate the business from February 2008 without setting the deposit amount of KRW 200 million.
The Defendant’s interference with the Defendant’s business from January 29, 2010 prevents the Plaintiff from visiting the said private house by mobilization of security guards to conduct business on June 19, 2013, while operating the said private house from January 29, 2010.
6. Around 23.23. Around the same day, the Plaintiff obstructed the Plaintiff’s work, such as having the employees move equipment, such as air conditioners, owned by the Plaintiff, to L in the city of king.
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 15-19, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8-11, and the purport of the whole argument is the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor.