(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.13 2017나2022726

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) 서울고등법원 2017.10.13 2017나2022726

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

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

o No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 9 of the first instance court, "the plaintiff alleged that "the plaintiff is defective after the pre-use inspection in the previous case's entry (including the underground) typ, substitute typ spher, and math typ" items are pre-use of the pre-use inspection, and "each of the front dong-gu walls and outer walls fall short of the strength of typing, typher, and sphers" items alleged in this case. However, even in light of the expert's appraisal of the first instance court, the plaintiff excluded from the calculation of the remuneration cost on the ground that the base value of typhers of each part was upper, and calculated the remuneration cost for the pre-use inspection only for the part where the typhers and sphers were occurred, and it is difficult to view it as the pre-use defect in the pre-use inspection."

o Decision 10 No. 6 of the first instance court Decision 10 No. 10, “No. 6” means that “No. 6 is influoral law,” “ even if the appraiser in the preceding case did not undergo an examination on the fire-prevention performance of the entrance, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the defect in the capacity of the entrance was not accepted through appraisal in the preceding case, or was partially recognized, and it cannot be deemed that the defect is separate from the performance defect in the section for common use.”

o Article 13, 19-20, Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, “No.4, prior to the closing of argument in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff stated that there was no request for additional appraisal to confirm the defect of the fire doors of this case before the closing of argument in the first instance trial, and even at the trial, there was no separate request for appraisal.”

2. The above 1,194,084,079 won among the lawsuit of this case and its related thereto.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나51819

-서울고등법원 2020.08.21 2019나2039308

-부산고등법원 2017.12.21 2017나25

-서울고등법원 2015.02.05 2014나21078

-서울고등법원 2015.01.22 2014나2004970