beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On December 14, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement and a transfer/acquisition agreement for the right (facilities) of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building E (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) with C on December 14, 200, and paid KRW 50 million to C as premium.
Since the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement on May 1, 2012 with the Defendant who purchased the instant commercial building from C, the Plaintiff performed a restaurant business in the instant commercial building and delivered the instant commercial building to the Defendant upon the termination of the lease agreement on January 31, 2019. The Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff’s premium, but did not recognize the Plaintiff’s premium, and the Plaintiff could also interfere with the Plaintiff’s collection of the premium from a new lessee by gathering it unfairly high.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 50 million won, which is the amount paid by the plaintiff as premiums, to the plaintiff as damages for interference with collecting premiums.
2. Each statement of the evidence Nos. 6, 11 through 14 requires that the Defendant is a significantly high-amount car in light of the amount of taxes, public charges, rents and deposits of surrounding commercial buildings and other charges with respect to the instant commercial buildings.
The plaintiff's refusal to enter into a lease agreement with a person arranged to become a new lessee without a justifiable reason is not sufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
(O) In light of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3, 5, 9 and Nos. 4, as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the defendant appears to have tried to maintain the same deposit and the same conditions as that of the previous two years. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the Si facility directly at the time of termination of the lease contract, and the plaintiff did not want to arrange for a new lessee to recover the premium. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument cannot be accepted without further review.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.