(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.16 2016나19494

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) 수원지방법원 2017.03.16 2016나19494

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 Plaintiff is working as an intermediary wholesaler in the D market (hereinafter “instant market”), and the Defendant does not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff established and operated a joint market for agricultural and fishery products in the instant market.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages due to the failure to perform the duty to expand the joint wholesale market facilities. The defendant failed to maintain and improve the joint wholesale market facilities in the market in this case, and to manage them reasonably, which led to the lack of auction facilities such as agricultural and fishery products storage facilities. Accordingly, the defendant is running an auction of agricultural products on the street such as a ground parking lot, and intermediary wholesalers including the plaintiff are bound to keep the sold agricultural products on the street. Thus, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 40,00,000 due to the severe damage caused by cold weather damage on the date of the bid, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above damages.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 20 of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products, a person who is obligated to maintain, improve, and manage a wholesale market facility is a person who sets up a wholesale market. According to Article 17 of the same Act, a wholesale market like the market of this case is established at the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing City, Special Self-Governing City, Special Self-Governing Province, or Si. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, not the opener of the market of this case, has a legal obligation to expand the joint market facilities of the market of this case. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has a duty to expand the joint market facilities of the market of this case under the contract of this case pursuant to the middle sale transaction agreement entered into with the Plaintiff. Thus, this part

참조조문

-농수산물 유통 및 가격안정에 관한 법률 제20조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.18 2016가단9414

-대전지방법원 2018.1.10. 선고 2016구합106666 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.16 2017노273

-서울고등법원 2018.12.07 2018누57386

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.27 2017고정630