logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나8654
손해배상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Sale Price" at the 7th parallel bottom of the third part of the judgment of the first instance as "B"; "the contract of this case" at the 5th parallel bottom of the same side as "the contract of this case"; "the road of this case" at the 4th parallel bottom as "the real estate of this case"; "the period for maintaining the provisional disposition of this case" at the 5th parallel bottom of the fourth parallel part as "the period for maintaining the provisional disposition of this case from October 2016 to May 28, 2018"; "the contract of this case" at the 5th parallel 11th parallel as "the contract of this case"; and "the contract of this case" at the 5th parallel as "the sales contract of this case" shall be cited as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment under the second part as to the plaintiff's assertion added at the trial.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the improper provisional disposition of this case, and that the defendant is responsible for paying consolation money to the plaintiff.

Since mental suffering due to an improper provisional disposition is deemed to be damage due to special circumstances, the existence of special circumstances that can be deemed to have suffered irrecoverable mental suffering only by compensating for property damage and the possibility of predictability for such special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Da2218, Nov. 30, 1970; 93Da50116, Sept. 9, 1994); and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge it; therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow