손해배상(기)
1. Of the part relating to the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following order to pay.
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions of some contents, thereby citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. Of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “1. 23. 2010” in the first part 18 shall be deemed to read “1. 23. 201,” the phrase “worked 15” in the fourth part 15 shall be deemed to read “worked 1. 23. 2,” and the phrase “1. 12. 12. 201” in the fifth part 5th part shall be deemed to read “policeman on January 201”.
(b)in Part V, following the fifth decision of the first instance, add to the findings of fact as follows:
D. The Plaintiff, from December 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010, raised a catch of KRW 1,262,258,600 for a period of two months from around December 1, 2009, while the Plaintiff, from August 4, 2010 to December 4, 2010, 235,104,100 for the catch of KRW 118,126,80 for the period from January 27, 201 to January 13, 201, reduced the catch compared to the previous year.
(c) In Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, “36 evidence” shall be deemed to be “written evidence 36”, “witness” shall be deemed to be “a witness of the first instance court”, “this court” shall be deemed to be “the court of the first instance”, and “Appraiser” in the 12th part shall be deemed to be “the expert witness of the first instance court”.
In the 7th sentence of the first instance court, the term "paragraph (a)(b)" shall be read as "the above paragraphs (1) and (2)".
E. The part of the Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s argument regarding Chapter 9-Class 18-Class 11-Class 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is determined as follows. (C) The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is as follows. (1) First, the Defendant’s occurrence of vibration or engine failure on June 2010 and around December 2010, for which repair is impossible, or H (G’s representative is the cause of a mistake on the ground of a mistake on the ground of a defect by a bruptor’s contact with the brupt. (C). Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of a mistake on the ground of a defect by the bruptor’s representative.