beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나58835

손해배상 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are among the reasons why the court of first instance's judgment, other than the reasons why the part of the court of first instance was changed to "paragraph 2" as follows.

1. to 1.

3. Since it is the same as the entry, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Nos. 7 and 4 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

[2] However, the defendant's liability is limited to 30% in light of the principle of the Damage Compensation Act, which limits the defendant's remuneration paid by the plaintiff in the course of performing the duty of making a bookkeeping agency work to the extent of KRW 165,00 per month or KRW 240,00 per month, and the fair sharing of damages, where the plaintiff transfers a large amount of commercial buildings same as each of the instant commercial buildings as the instant commercial buildings to the new real estate dealer.

(b)Nos. 7 and 14 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

[2] Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,847,223 won (i.e., KRW 126,157,412 x KRW 0.3, and less than KRW 0.3) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 2, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance that the defendant is deemed reasonable to dispute about the scope of the obligation to pay damages to the defendant from December 2, 2016 to May 16, 2019, and from the next day to the date of full payment)

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition for reasons, and the remainder shall be dismissed for reasons.

The part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount in the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and thus the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.