(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.20 2015나310979

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 2016.10.20 2015나310979

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff purchased and cultivated the fat from the Gyeongbuk-do Port to the trade name “E” at the Gyeong-do Port and thereafter sold the fat, and the Defendant is a person who cultivates and sells the fat from Jeonnam-do Port to the trade name “F.”

B. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff was supplied with the 33,478 Marina, which was cultivated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant fish”).

C. The Plaintiff cultivated the instant tabage at the Plaintiff’s stable. From October 27, 2014 to January 15, 2015, 11,703 mari among the instant tabage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant dental fish from the Defendant at KRW 39.5 million from the Defendant as a broker, and the Defendant supplied the instant dental fish with the disease to the Plaintiff, and eventually all of the instant dental fish were discarded.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff damages for KRW 15,624,189 for the damages for the 11,703 Marin, 2015, which was closed around January 15, 2015, which was the time when the instant lawsuit was filed, KRW 15,624,189 [13,797,837, KRW 3,006, KRW 307, KRW 2,726,100, KRW 100] x 80% of the Defendant’s liability ratio], as damages for the 22,775 Marin, 2015, KRW 50,624,189, and delay damages.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant sold the instant dental fish to C as an individual among fishery products, and C sold it again to the Plaintiff, so there is no sales contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff as to the instant dental fish.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on the premise that the Defendant sold the instant plant to the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8 as to the parties to a sales contract for the instant order.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2014.12.19 2014가단4964

-대구지방법원김천지원 2017.09.27 2017가단69

-부산고등법원 2005. 10. 28. 선고 2005나190 판결

-광주지방법원목포지원 2019.11.27 2019가단52363

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.11.22 2017나24000