(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.01 2015나38629

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.01 2015나38629

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, in respect of Defendant Korea who falls under the following order of payment:

Reasons

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to the assertion on the delegation of the power of attorney and the procedure for selecting the parties, the Defendants asserted that the delegation of the power of attorney and the procedure for selecting the parties were conducted according to their genuine intent.

(2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the arguments as a whole, and the records, the National Countermeasure Committee on the Recovery of Victims of Both Motor Vehicles and the Reinstatement of Dispacters (hereinafter referred to as "sulpacty") recruited the plaintiff in the instant claim for damages on September 5, 2013, and the plaintiffs expressed their intent to participate and shared KRW 10,000 with the costs of lawsuit by sharing the power of attorney and the selection of the appointed party.

(3) Therefore, it is determined that there is a legitimate delegation and selection of the plaintiffs' powers of attorney.

B. As to the assertion that there is no standing to be a party, Defendant E and F asserts to the effect that their lawsuits against them are unlawful on the grounds of lack of standing to be a party in this case.

(2) In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to sue is a person who asserts his/her right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit.

In this case where the plaintiffs filed a claim for damages against the above defendants, the plaintiff's assertion that the above defendants are not qualified to be a party is not liable for damages, which shall be proved through the deliberation of the merits.

(3) Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

2. Basic facts

A. (1) The Plaintiffs are the persons who were subject to the police control while moving from the luminous school to the luminous area on August 24, 2013.

(2) Meanwhile, at that time, Defendant C was the chief of AB police station, Defendant D’s chief of AB police station, Defendant E’s chief of H police station, and Defendant F’s chief of H police station.

B. (1) On July 24, 2013, the Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter “MMNo”) reported the following outdoor assembly to the head of H police station.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.12 2013가단5140690

-서울북부지방법원 2016.12.08 2016가합1032

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.17 2017가합112370

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.07.19 2016가합691

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2015고단2944