(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.31 2016나40292

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.31 2016나40292

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. The reasoning in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the case where the “3............ of the judgment of the court of first instance” is used again as the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance

2. In general, he/she shall perform his/her duty of care as a good manager according to the terms of delegation, and in particular, an attorney-at-law to whom a legal representative is delegated has the duty to protect the client's rights in good faith on the basis of professional legal knowledge and experience in performing the delegated duties.

However, in the delegation, the duty of care is judged on the basis of the average person on the occupation, status, etc. of an ordinary person, so the duty of care of an attorney-at-law is the standard for the determination of an average attorney-at-law as a legal expert.

Therefore, in cases where it is not recognized that an attorney-at-law performed delegated affairs with reasonable care and effort to the extent ordinarily required for an average attorney-at-law in handling delegated affairs (e.g., in cases where an attorney-at-law is deprived of the client's opportunity to file a lawsuit due to failure to observe the date or period specified in the law, in cases where the attorney-at-law was deprived of the client's opportunity to file a lawsuit due to failure to observe the date or period specified in the law, the attorney-at-law was placed on the interpretation of the law established by the precedents and dominant theories, but the attorney-at-law did not comply with the order even if the special direction of the client was given, etc.)

It can not be said that the attorney can not be held liable for default or tort due to the fact that the result of the client's loss occurred.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.11.07 2019나10194

-수원지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노2496

-대법원 2018.12.13 2018다231864

-대법원 2002. 11. 22. 선고 2002다9479 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.26 2016나57238