logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나9556
약정금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the further determination under Paragraph 2 below, as to the defendant’s argument raised in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(The grounds alleged in the trial in the appeal by the Defendant do not differ from the contents alleged in the first instance court except as otherwise alleged in the following Paragraph 2, and it does not differ from the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court even if considering the evidence additionally submitted by the Defendant in the trial.) 2. Additional determination

A. Around May 31, 2016, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff was boomed to the Defendant, thereby causing injury to the Defendant’s ad hoc part; (b) around January 24, 2018, the Plaintiff was faced with household appliances, such as TV owned by the Defendant, and damaged them; and (c) around January 27, 2018, the Plaintiff was damaged by the Defendant’s head carcin and the Defendant’s boomed.

The Plaintiff is obligated to pay 3,920,00 won (=3,000,000 won for property damage) to the Defendant due to the above tort damages. It is set off against the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant due to the above Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff.

B. Article 496 of the Civil Act provides, “If the obligation is due to an intentional tort, the obligor shall not set-off against the obligee.” If set-off is granted for the damage claim caused by an intentional tort, the person who committed the illegal act may not be actually paid the damages, as well as the person who committed the illegal act, thereby causing retaliation.

In addition, the concept of social justice that the victim due to intentional tort results in not being able to receive actual repayment by exercising the offset right of the perpetrator.

arrow