logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나22215
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the parts against Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance, order the payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) According to the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B, when purchasing the instant vehicle in accordance with the instant service contract, paid the purchase price for the instant vehicle, and at the same time received the said vehicle under actual management or received it at the Plaintiff’s salary point, etc., notwithstanding the contractual obligation to secure possession, due to the failure to purchase the instant vehicle that has reached a total of 10 vehicles for 2 months and to continuously secure possession, which constitutes a case where Defendant B failed to perform its obligation under the instant service contract.

Therefore, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from nonperformance under the instant service contract.

(2) On this point, Defendant B asserted that the actual party to the instant service contract is E and that he is not liable under the instant service contract merely lent the title of the contract as an employee of E, and therefore, the party to the contract is generally an issue of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract. However, the interpretation of the expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning of the party involved in the contract, which is given to the party involved in the act of indicating the intent, and is not bound to the phrase used in the document, but must reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the party gives to the act of indicating the contract in writing, regardless of the party's internal intent, if the content of the contract is written in writing as a disposal document.

arrow