(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.31 2018가단107833

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.31 2018가단107833

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In the absence of dispute, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract with the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) on November 22, 2012 and ordered the non-party Co., Ltd. to deliver the suspension, etc. to the non-party Co., Ltd. from April 2017 to July 2017, and the Defendant supplied the handbaths, rollls, etc. to the non-party

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. Since the Plaintiff supplied the non-party company with the quantity less than the ordered quantity by intention or negligence, and the Plaintiff was not only compensated for the shortage of the Plaintiff, but also failed to supply the non-party company with any more suspension, etc., the Plaintiff sought compensation against the Defendant for the shortage of damages and KRW 2,544,654, and KRW 82,111,080, total operating income for the year when the contract for the supply of goods with the non-party company was maintained, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 84,65,734, supra.

Although it is not clear whether the cause of the claim is illegal or not, it does not affect the conclusion, it is judged as it is.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a shortage of supply quantity due to the defendant's intentional or negligent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit without examining the scope of damages.

B. Even if it is assumed that there was a shortage of supply quantity due to the Defendant’s intentional or negligent negligence, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is a special damage, and that the Defendant knew or could have known of the loss, especially the loss equivalent to the operating profit of the Plaintiff’s assertion. It is insufficient to recognize that there was a provisional occurrence, and there is no

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.11.18 2015가단13262

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.09.04 2019가단15313

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.09.12 2018가단1157

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.05.22 2019가단1192

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.02.27 2018가단7872