(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.21 2017나2046333

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 2018.02.21 2017나2046333

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written or added. As such, the court's explanation concerning this case shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to "I am" (hereinafter referred to as "I am").

The following shall be added to the sixth Tenth sentence of the first instance court:

8) The import or sale of products containing alcohol is not allowed in Saudi Arabia. Although the analysis certificate submitted by the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff’s products are not containing alcohol, the Plaintiff’s products supplied after the conclusion of the contract as of July 9, 2014 were detected with alcohol ingredients, and accordingly, the Defendant failed to sell the products.

“No. 8” shall be added to “No. 22 and 30” in Part 6 of the 7th sentence of the first instance court.

No. 31 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court shall be written with "No. 23 and 31 of the A" in the 18th judgment.

Part 3 of the 9th judgment of the first instance court "SEA" has been put into the "SFDA, Saudi Fodi and Drughor".

The following shall be added to the 9th sentence of the first instance court, the 11th sentence:

8) It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided products whose alcoholic content is not entirely included to the Defendant in the contract concluded in July 9, 2014, only on the basis of the statement of evidence Nos. 45, 50, 52, 55 through 57 on alcoholic content, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 33 and 34, the plaintiff discussed about the defendant's side (Dr. C (Dr. C) and alcohol ingredients in relation to the product exported by the plaintiff around the beginning of 2013. The plaintiff discussed about the issue as to whether there was a alcohol ingredient in the product exported by the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.05.12 2016나2046404

-서울고등법원 2017.09.14 2016나2068602

-서울고등법원 2018.09.06 2017나2031102

-서울고등법원 2018.08.23 2017나2043839

-서울고등법원 2018.04.26 2016나2070568