logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.07.20 2015가단20169
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim (1) from April 7, 2012 to April 25, 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff received a white therapy (hereinafter “the instant white therapy”). The Defendant was not a dentist’s license holder, and the Plaintiff was suffering from considerable harm to the customer’s business due to the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s dental surgery was weak, and the Plaintiff’s dental surgery was broken down to a level more than necessary than the Plaintiff’s dental license; and (b) the Plaintiff was unable to properly drinks from April 7, 2012 to April 25, 2013; and (c) the Plaintiff was unable to properly inhale food and drink; and (d) the Plaintiff was suffering from considerable harm to the customer’s dialogue as a merchant of a shop.

(2) At present, among the 6 parts of the Plaintiff’s 1st century, the upper right-hand part of the six parts of the Plaintiff’s 1st century has fallen, and the left-hand part part of the 1st century requires the return of the 6 parts of the 1st century to the 6th part of the 6th part of the 6th part of the 5th part.

In addition, the defendant is relatively less in a state of inconvenience by manufacturing sofash excessively sofash, and there is a possibility of aftermathing, sofashing, sofashing, sofashing, and adjacent glaging diseases, etc. of the refash.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s damages (i.e., KRW 1,8960,000,000,000,000,000) incurred from the Defendant’s secondary medical practice (the instant U.S. medical treatment) and damages for delay.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion (1) Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the treatment of the U.S. pertaining to the treatment of the instant case, the Defendant’s filing of the instant lawsuit is in violation of the Non-Lawsuit Agreement and thus ought

(2) Although there is no dentist’s license to the Defendant, dental technicians.

arrow