손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court quoted in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “In December 23, 2015, the first instance judgment of the court of first instance”; “In December 23, 2015,” “In December 23, 2015,” “in February 26, 2015,” which reduces below the sixth, “in February 26, 2015,” which read “in February 26, 2016,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part claimed by the plaintiff by this court is added to the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the contents of the judgment
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Additional parts
A. As seen earlier, the original body at issue in this case on the premise and at issue is mixed with flame retardant radars, merasias, etc., which may cause defects such as “inundry at the time of laundry,” in a case where a garry is colored with multiple fiberss mixed with them and has already been manufactured in a tent.
It is so true that no error is involved in the chroding process.
The defects of the re-chroded nuclear power plant in this case are likely to have occurred due to the Defendant's re-chromosome in the state of being re-dried by being mixed with several fiberss as above.
In other words, it can be considered that the driving of re-chromosomes in the state of the original body itself is erroneous, which is a problem of whether this is a mistake between the plaintiff and the defendant.
B. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not suffer any defect such as the fall of the mine level even if the plaintiff re-exploited the original body, and the defendant will be entrusted with the re-exploiting of the original body.
This is clear in light of the following circumstances and circumstances.
- The beginning of the case is because the Defendant did not properly do so so and the plant spawnization of the plant spawn.
In this regard, in order to file a claim that the plaintiff is a click, the defendant himself/herself decided to rechlost the original body to be exempted from liability.
In other words, there was a incentive for the defendant to do so even if it is unreasonable to do so.
- If the defendant re-spawns the original body to the plaintiff, the problem is the degree of trust.