logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2020.07.16 2019나26206
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for modification and addition as follows.

(A) The first instance judgment is reasonable, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion and the evidence submitted are fully examined. This is based on three pages of the first instance judgment.

It shall be amended to "from the defendant around that time" of the 3th parallel of conduct to "from D around that time."

On October 27, 2014, the first instance court held that “No evidence exists” (D’s prohibition of the Plaintiff’s access to the child care center of this case on October 27, 2014 can be replaced by the president if the string person visited and inspected the child care center, and if so, he/she could have a bad influence on the operation of the child care center, and the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of this degree at that time. (The Plaintiff himself/herself appears to have agreed to the extent that “the Plaintiff himself/herself was changed by the president if he/she goes to work under the pretext of confirmation, such as equipment, etc. before the approval for the change, but it appears to have been D in its overall purport (the conclusion does not change even if the Defendant B was the Defendant B).

(Plaintiff’s preparatory brief dated April 7, 2020) added “........................., 10 pages 8 of the first instance judgment.”

The following "Plaintiff" is well aware of the circumstances that the child care center in this case was operated as the enemy and operated in improper ways on the account book, and that it would result in enormous impediment to the operation of the child care center in this case if it is ordered to take corrective measures again by using a safety level that does not meet the standards for infant and child vehicles, etc.

arrow