logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.11.04 2019나106574
손해배상(기)
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance, which determined only one of the selective claims of the plaintiff, dismissed, and did not make any decision on the remainder of the claims, is unlawful. As long as the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court that was illegal as such, the whole of the plaintiff's selective claims was transferred to the appellate court. Thus, the part of the selective claims, which was not determined among the selective claims, shall not be deemed as having been pending in the court of first instance,

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da99 Decided July 24, 1998). According to the records, the Plaintiff explicitly asserted in the first instance court’s liability for the employer as the cause of claim seeking damages through a preparatory document as of October 31, 2018, which was submitted to the court of first instance, by asserting that “(i) the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, was unable to perform the duty of care under the delegation contract, and (ii) the Defendant was unable to submit a petition of appeal within the period of appeal despite having received the special right of care for filing an appeal from the Plaintiff.”

(See 5 of the above preparatory documents). On the basis of the above, the court of first instance held that "the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lost due to the defendant's violation of the duty of due care, and the delegation contract concerning the filing of an appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be deemed to have been concluded," which only dismissed the claim for damages due to non-performance, and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance on the claim for damages due to selective combination of employer liability, and the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff aims to achieve one purpose in the first instance court.

arrow