손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this case are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, and thus, this case shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 15th of the judgment of the first instance court is the "illegal act and damage" in the 5th of the judgment of the first instance.
From 5 pages 4 to 6 pages 11 of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “determination on the assertion of damages due to the destruction of products” shall be as follows.
According to the evidence Nos. 5-2 and 6-1 of the evidence Nos. 5-2 and 6-1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the tax invoice of K (trade name) that “I” can be discarded at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion can be acknowledged that the tax invoice of K (trade name) was issued on January 19, 2014; and I’s tax invoice of Cinkex on January 31, 2014.
However, as seen earlier, as seen in the “1. Basic Facts,” the instant provisional disposition ruling was already revoked on April 23, 2009, much earlier than that.
In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including paper numbers) were destroyed by the execution of the provisional disposition in this case or the defendants' filing of a lawsuit on the merits of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.
(Additionally, in the case of Defendant B, the Plaintiff did not file an application for the provisional disposition in this case). Rather, in full view of the description of the evidence No. 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is deemed to have placed each of the above products under the order of the court below for the establishment of the court below, but the court below did not make a settlement of the price, thereby being kept in one’s warehouse. The Plaintiff merely appears to have disposed of the said products. In addition, even if there were grounds for the Plaintiff’s failure to settle and accept the price for each of the above products in order to wait for the final outcome of the instant lawsuit on the merits related to the provisional disposition.