logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.29 2016나9260
손해배상(기)
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell 10% of pine trees to C with the introduction of the Defendant, and first completed the work for transplanting pine 78gs, and C’s employees would take 55gs, excluding the smallest pine trees 23gs (hereinafter “instant pine trees”).

B. After completing the work for additional transplantation of pine trees for 50gs, the Plaintiff first delivered 105gs of pine trees to C by aggregating 55gs of pine trees working first.

C. The Plaintiff transplanted the instant pine trees to another place, but all of them dead.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) The Defendant was delegated by C with the authority to select pine trees, and the Plaintiff completed the work to transplant pine trees 78,00 according to the Defendant's order, but C did not receive the pine trees. As a result, the Plaintiff incurred losses resulting from the Plaintiff's death of pine trees, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 4,60,000 (i.e., the instant pine trees 237 x 1 200,000 won) and damages for delay therefrom (i.e., the instant pine trees x 230,000 won per 1 x 200,000 won). (ii) The Defendant’s employee selected and displayed pine trees to receive them, and thus, the Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff's request.

B. As to whether the Defendant was selected from pine trees as delegated by C, it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the descriptions of health expenses, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was responsible for the damage incurred to pine trees from the selection of pine trees or the instant pine trees. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .

arrow