(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.03.13 2019가단202763

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.03.13 2019가단202763

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The claim for the payment of KRW 3,234,00 among the counterclaims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed;

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied KRW 300,000,000 per unit of 153,000 won (per unit of 51,000 won) from E, “F” (hereinafter “instant product”) and entrusted the storage of the instant product by setting the storage fees of KRW 20,000 per unit of 20,000 to the Lessee who operated the warehouse business in the trade name of “F”.

B. The Plaintiff kept 650 parts of the instant product in a warehouse with a total amount of 7 strings remaining after the Plaintiff sold, but the Plaintiff did not pay storage fees for a long period of time, and on December 1, 2017, sold 650 parts of the instant product to the “G President” without the Plaintiff’s consent to 4.5 million won (7,000 won per unit).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant crime”). (c)

The Counterclaim Plaintiff was indicted by the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2019Kadan257 due to the instant crime, and the court recognized the instant crime as embezzlement on August 21, 2019 and sentenced the Defendant to a punishment of four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution.

However, the court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged by the prosecutor that the 650 product of this case embezzled by the Lessee is 3,3150,000 won (51,000 won per set).

The damaged product of this case was loaded in a logistics warehouse for a period of not more than three years from the date of production, and in the case of clothes, the value of the goods considerably decreased after the expiration of the period from the date of production, and the victim first asked the defendant that he did not pay the storage charge for the defendant, and that he would have first asked the defendant about the amount that could have been made to dispose of the inventory. The victim voluntarily asked the defendant that " how would be the amount of the inventory when he would be the amount of the inventory management?" and it would be difficult to confirm how it would be the amount of the inventory management." It would be difficult to say that the amount of the goods would have been produced more than 50,000 won.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.03.13 2019가단202763

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.24 2014고합978

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.27 2017가단5176925

-수원지방법원 2017.02.08 2014가단52007

-서울고등법원 2015.10.16 2014나2051624