손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the pertinent parts as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 12 of the first instance court's ruling "issuance" of the first instance court's first instance judgment is dismissed as "generating", and Article 6 of the second instance court's second instance ruling "It is difficult to believe that the witness J's testimony is difficult to believe" in light of the above facts and circumstances as well as relation with the plaintiff.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone in the third sentence of the 13th sentence of the first instance court is as follows: “The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, including the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, to this court,” and the following is added to the fifth sentence.
Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act (the fact that the amount of damages has occurred, but it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damages due to the nature of the case, the court may determine the reasonable amount as damages by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings and all the circumstances recognized as the result of the examination of evidence.
The court asserts to the effect that the amount of damages should be determined by the court.
However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone has any defect in the products asserted by the Plaintiff, and even if there are parts related to the KR011 products and their products, so long as the cause of the defect cannot be specified, it cannot be deemed that the damage was caused as alleged by the defect in direct film supplied by the Defendant.
Ultimately, it can be seen that “the fact of damage is recognized, but it is very difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case.”