(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.01 2015나6656 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.01 2015나6656

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The grounds for a judgment of the first instance shall be quoted for this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the first instance;

However, the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is added as follows.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for business losses incurred by the Plaintiff from operating the instant farm, including KRW 202,221,156, total KRW 321,267,956, and delay damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant logistics warehouse and construction of cement and asphalt in which the entire site was packed in cement and asphalt, and the drainage facilities were installed in connection with the existing collection and alteration, and the rainwater of the instant logistics warehouse flow into the instant farm at once, and the relevant flood occurred.

In light of the fact that the result of fact-finding on the land survey and design of the Pocheon Market and the Pocheon-Land Survey, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of the first instance as a result of the on-site verification conducted by the court of the first instance and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Defendant’s packing of the site of the instant logistics warehouse in cement and asphalt cannot be deemed as an act of violating the relevant Acts. ② The method of having the instant drainage facilities connected to the excellent pipes installed on the adjacent road outside the instant logistics warehouse was included in the matters of construction permission for the instant logistics warehouse, it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was caused by the Defendant’s intentional or negligent tort, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

3. The decision of the first instance court on the conclusion is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.28 2013가합11260

-서울고등법원 2021.03.26 2020누54113

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2012.07.03 2011고정297

-울산지방법원 2018.11.01 2016가합24846

-수원지방법원 2019.06.13 2017나17662