(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.05.01 2014나304922

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) 대구지방법원 2015.05.01 2014나304922

손해배상

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. On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she engaged in the mid-term sales business and agreed to purchase D-owned vehicles through C, and that he/she was found to the Defendant’s office located on April 16, 2013 following the following day.

At the time, the Plaintiff heard the horses that the Defendant had a business relationship with D and decided to purchase three units, and then transferred the amount of KRW 96 million out of the amount of KRW 97 million to a new bank account with D by telephone with D.

Nevertheless, the Defendant changed the horses to D, but refused to deliver three said vehicles to the Plaintiff on the ground that it did not receive the purchase price.

In light of these circumstances, the defendant shall be held liable for damages of KRW 96 million suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal act, since the defendant conspired with D and obtained the above purchase price by deceiving the plaintiff or aided at least D's above fraud.

2. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff transferred KRW 96 million to the deposit account in the name of G on April 16, 2013, and the plaintiff was suspected of "the defendant, D, and C conspired with the plaintiff to obtain KRW 96 million from the plaintiff" on April 18, 2013, and the defendant, D, and Eul filed a complaint with the Daegu Northern Police Station.

However, the above facts and evidence Nos. 2 and 5, part of the evidence No. 3, and witness testimony No. 600, in collusion with D as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant acquired the purchase price from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

It is not enough to see that the Defendant aided or aided the act of defraudation of D, and the part of the evidence No. 3 that the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that it was in the same business relationship with D is difficult to believe in light of the statement No. 7, the witness F, and H’s testimony.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2014.10.08 2013가단30995

-대구지방법원 2016.12.07 2016나6062

-청주지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가단102631

-청주지방법원 2019.04.11 2018가단5416

-울산지방법원 2020.11.03 2018가단60245