(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.29 2019재나5021

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 2019.11.29 2019재나5021

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:

On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Central District Court 2015da5306098, and the said court rendered a judgment on December 8, 2017, that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the annual rate of KRW 36,329,647 and the annual rate of KRW 5% from October 31, 2013 to December 8, 2017 and the annual rate of KRW 15% from the next day to December 8, 2017.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal as Seoul Central District Court 2017Na91129. On November 20, 2018, the said court rendered a judgment with the purport that “The part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to pay under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the annual rate of KRW 872,560 and the annual rate of KRW 5% from October 31, 2013 to November 20, 2018, and the annual rate of KRW 15% from the next day to November 20, 2018. The Plaintiff’s remaining appeal shall be dismissed.”

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2018Da298850, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the final appeal on March 28, 2019, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Whether the lawsuit for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s argument in the judgment subject to a retrial did not determine the Plaintiff’s actual income, and ② where the victim obtained a certain amount of income, if evidence of reliable actual income does not appear, it did not determine whether the victim’s actual income had been disclosed by statistical income for the persons engaged in the occupation similar to the occupation where the victim was engaged, but rather, it did not determine whether there was objective data that could confirm the actual income. As such, the Plaintiff’s actual income was calculated on the basis of urban daily wage.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.02.17 2014나305659

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.05 2018나80195

-수원지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나33042

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.13 2017나20196

-대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다16904 판결