(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.11.20 2015나2611 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2015.11.20 2015나2611

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. On March 201, 201, the Plaintiff agreed from C to import the goods of this case at USD 5,760,00, and KRW 800 (hereinafter “the goods of this case”). C requested the Defendant to process the goods of this case and trade agency for the goods of this case. The Defendant shipped only 690 boxes out of the goods of this case in order to acquire the goods of this case, processed the goods of this case so that the goods of this case fall short of the first shipment volume, thereby allowing the imported goods to be subject to prohibition of import. The Plaintiff returned the goods of this case on the condition that the goods of this case be re-imported and re-imported, but disposed of the said goods at his own discretion.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,278,40 (i.e., USD 5,760, USD 1,090 as of May 1, 201), return cost 2,426,64 won, and anticipated profit 6,103,650, total of KRW 14,80,714, and delay damages therefrom, which could have been earned by resale of the instant goods.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the party to the import contract of this case is C, and C requested the defendant to process and export the goods of this case, and that the defendant processed the goods of this case. Thus, even according to the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff's claim cannot be held liable for the non-performance of the above contract to the defendant, who is not the party to the contract concerning the goods of this case. Thus, the plaintiff

B. According to the reasoning of Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 6 and all pleadings as to the claim for damages arising from tort, it is recognized that part of the goods of this case were imported and returned, but the above facts and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone alone were loaded only part of the goods of this case in order to dispose of the goods of this case at will.

There is no evidence to prove that the instant product was processed as an prohibited item, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.07.18 2019고단747

-서울고등법원 2017.05.12 2016나2032535

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.18 2019나35185

-서울북부지방법원 2016.11.25 2016노1490

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.14 2018가단52052