(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.27 2016나2046893

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 2017.04.27 2016나2046893

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance has sufficient grounds for admitting the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues).

The reasons to be stated by this court are as follows, excluding the following parts, deletion, or addition, because it is identical to the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. From the 5th of the first instance judgment, the part of the part to be dried, deleted, or added, the part of Schlage and fences “Shoe” in the third place shall be filled with “shoe and fences” as “shoe”, and the part below the said part shall be filled with “shoe and pentor”.

From No. 7 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the sixth conduct:

In accordance with the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the part regarding “I” from “I” to “I” to “I” shall be deleted from “I” to “I”, and the following shall be read as “I”, and the No. I” to “I” respectively.

The following details shall be added to Chapter 5 of the first instance judgment:

In addition, the following contents shall be added to Section 12 of Section 9 of the first instance judgment, "In light of the partial statement of the PPcar driver E in this case which is confirmed by the statement in Section 16 (Recording), the possibility that the plaintiff would have distorted the damage caused by the accident in this case shall not be ruled out completely."

“Ah, according to the images of No. 13 with the video recorded at the time of the instant accident, and Eul evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2 presumed to have been taken immediately after the instant accident, in view of the images of No. 13 with the video recorded at the time of the instant accident, the pumps of this case are high at least 45 million won.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.11.10 2016나9324

-서울고등법원 2017.06.01 2016나2086471

-서울고등법원 2016.10.20 2016나2011804

-서울고등법원 2016.11.10 2016나2027199

-서울고등법원 2019.07.11 2018나2070807