(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.08 2015나6910 | 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 2015.10.08 2015나6910

손해배상등

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The scope of the trial in this Court is the principal lawsuit of the plaintiff, seeking the payment of KRW 6736,500,000 for restoration due to the defendant's default, and KRW 588,880,00 for damages (the principal claim) or KRW 14,68,200 for damages due to the plaintiff's negligence as a counterclaim, the part of the claim of KRW 4,146,30 among the counterclaim is dismissed, and it is evident that only the plaintiff only filed an appeal against the principal claim and the judgment of the first instance court of which the remainder of the counterclaim is dismissed. Thus, since only the principal claim is subject to the trial in this Court, it shall be deliberated and decided.

2. The reasoning for the court's explanation as to the claim of this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the part concerning "1. Recognition" and "2. Judgment as to the claim of this case" in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the result of fact inquiry as to Ddodododododododododododododododo was added by additional evidence submitted by the court of first instance or rejection of the plaintiff's assertion, and where the following judgment is added to the 11.9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, as it is stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Statement: (A) The Plaintiff sought compensation for damages based on the warranty under the Civil Act on the premise that the pertinent contract constitutes a contract for the supply of manufactured goods, which has the nature of the contract, on the premise that it constitutes a contract for the supply of goods. However, as seen earlier, even if there was a non-conformity phenomenon in the instant LROMr, this is merely a disadvantage for the Plaintiff, who is at risk contained in the instant contract, and cannot be seen as a product defect, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part, which is premised on the existence of a defect in the instant LROMr,

[Judgment]

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

참조조문

-민법

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.04.24 2014나12635

-인천지방법원 2017.08.24 2016나65742

-서울동부지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나24935

-부산지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나5365

-서울고등법원 2016.10.04 2016나2682