beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.07 2016나57788

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) from the bottom of the fifth to the seventh part of the judgment of first instance, “the Defendant” shall be deemed to be “the Defendant”; and (b) as to the assertion added by the Plaintiff in this court, the following grounds of the judgment of first instance are the same, except for the addition of “additional Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Claim for 2. Counterclaim” as to the assertion added by the Plaintiff in this court; and (c) thus, it shall

2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion on the counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of damages equivalent to the amount of the Defendant’s outstanding amount of damages against the Plaintiff is extended due to the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence, although the Defendant’s employees knew or could have known of the embezzlement of A, the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 50%, and accordingly, the amount equivalent to 50%, which is the Defendant’s fault ratio, should be offset against the said damages. However, even if each of the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, which was submitted by the Plaintiff in the court of first instance, presented by this court, is insufficient to recognize that there was intentional or gross negligence against the Defendant’s employees in relation to the Defendant’s tort, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would not demand compensation of KRW 12,560,000 exceeding the above amount actually paid to the Plaintiff since the Defendant actually paid KRW 10,205,00 to the defrauded I. Thus, in full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the following as follows: (a) Nos. 1, 1, 6, 7, 8-1, and 2, Article 15(1)1 of the standardized foreign travel terms and conditions provide that the Defendant shall compensate for 30% of the travel fee if he notifies the Plaintiff one day prior to the commencement of the travel due to a cause attributable to the travel company; (b) A shall be between I and the travel company on October 2, 2014. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26788, Oct. 2, 2015>