beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.08.17 2015나3952

손해배상(기)

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.

(1) Of the facts of recognition under Section 1. of the first instance judgment

subsection (b) shall be deleted.

(2) On the third 10th of the first instance judgment, the following judgments shall be added.

“The Defendant’s claim for damages from an amount of money that the Defendant is practically unable to repay to the Plaintiff’s employees even though the Plaintiff did not have any civil liability for the similar accidents occurred in the Plaintiff Company, is for the purpose of having the Defendant voluntarily withdraw from the Plaintiff through an application for remedy, such as unfair dismissal, and thus, the instant claim constitutes an abuse of rights. If the exercise of the right is intended to be deemed an abuse of the right, the subjective purpose of the exercise of the right is to cause damages to the other party and to cause damages to the other party, and the exercise of the right must be objectively deemed to be in violation of the social order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22083, 22090, Sept. 4, 2002). Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

The scope of damages referred to in paragraph (1) shall be as follows:

“B. The scope of liability for damages 1) The Plaintiff was unable to produce the amount for 14 days due to the instant accident involving operating income and high-maintenance damages. The amount of damages generated by the Plaintiff is KRW 6,319,650 due to the purchase of half-finished goods at an external purchasing place and operation thereof by the method of re-delivery to the existing customer.

2) The Plaintiff, who suffered loss from replacement of machinery and equipment, is partly equipped with part of the devices, such as the reactivity and reflector, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).