(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2016나2011767

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 2017.01.12 2016나2011767

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (such as the law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on issues) are sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited as it is, under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the part of "Mo home shopping" written or added shall be referred to as "Mo home shopping".

Part 4 15 "9320%" shall be added to "9.20%".

After the first page, the Defendant did not produce “dicobp” any longer, and the Plaintiff did not sell “dicobp” any longer.

5. The 8th page "Witness" shall be filled with "Witness of the first instance trial".

The first 5th 19-20 "amount of loss caused by the defect in the products of the "Oddyd and Odcodyd" shall be calculated as "amount of loss with respect to 6,100 Ordyd and Odcodyd" stored by the Plaintiff, which was not sold due to any defect different from the manufacturing date of the Madyd and Odcodydyd".

The 6th parallels 7 through 7th parallels 19 shall be done in the following manner:

(A) In order to recognize the existence of a defect in an article, the article generally does not have the quality, function, performance, internal and external control safety, etc. which are expected to be equipped with as a kind of article.

In this case, there is no evidence that the plaintiff and the defendant have made a special agreement on the defect of goods.

(B) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return all of the broadcast content products of this case, and the Defendant accepted and returned them.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.09.06 2017나2071452

-서울고등법원 2018.07.05 2017나2069640

-서울고등법원 2018.12.13 2018나2020932

-서울고등법원 2019.02.12 2018나2004466

-서울고등법원 2018.10.25 2018나2018670