logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.20 2015가단5383453
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 107,029,826 as well as for the payment thereof from October 24, 2015 to October 20, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacture, printing, and sale of plastic packaging paper, imported Mesing machine (POUCHG MACHINE) in Japan.

However, the Plaintiff: (a) dismantled and transported the parts of the said machinery with its main and main parts; (b) one of them is N.O.10383/MDES BH-60DLSC; and (c) one of them is the main and main parts.

B. The Plaintiff, the representative of C, entrusted Defendant B with the work of transporting the instant machinery from the ground side of the factory building D, Jindo, D (hereinafter “the instant building”) to the second floor of the instant building. Defendant B operated the heavy machine owned by Defendant A to transport the instant machinery to the second floor of the instant building.

In consideration of the above work, Defendant B paid KRW 2,500,000 from the Plaintiff, and Defendant A paid KRW 350,000 from Defendant B.

C. In order to transport the instant machinery, Defendant B placed the instant machinery on the cover board and grouped the instant machinery with two slot labels as follows.

(A) A singling labelling labellings (Attachment) (B) and machinery of this case, after Defendant A’s connection with two strings, Defendant A set up two strings with the machine of this case with the machine of this case and its sub-marks, and then sub-marketed with the two strings.

Sub-marks and machinery connected to a mid-term season (U.S.) fing (C.)

D. Defendant A was at the front of the second floor of the instant building, which is a place where the instant machine is scheduled to be installed, and was at a higher level than the part (B) of the instant machine, to put the part (B) through (b) of the instant machine, and Defendant E, an employee E, even with the part (B).

However, the defendant A was aware of the mid-term operation of the machinery of this case, and the part of (B) of the machinery of this case was examined.

arrow