(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.16 2015나53946

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) 광주지방법원 2015.12.16 2015나53946

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 pertinent Plaintiff, who is engaged in the repair business of mechanical equipment with the trade name of “E”, is used in the installation of machinery to run the business of repairing mechanical equipment at its place of work (hereinafter “instant place of work”).

Defendant B is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and installing headings under the trade name of “G”, and Defendant C is a person engaged in the business of transporting with J Tracs (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and the Defendant’s National Freight Trucking Association (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Defendant C with respect to the instant vehicle.

B. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff’s request for work against Defendant B left Defendant B at KRW 2,600,000 for replacement work (hereinafter “instant work”) with the same role as wheels so that the head of the family can work on the back, as one of the main parts of the head of the family list installed in the instant work site, as one of the main parts of the head of the family list.

At the time, Defendant B prepared and entered the written estimate to the Plaintiff as follows.

Total estimated amount: 1,500,000 won spons, lightboards, H/T 300,000 won 80,000 won sponss

C. 1) Defendant B had two employees on August 6, 2013 to carry out the instant work, and went to the workplace operated by the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Plaintiff first left the instant workplace with a view to getting a list on the floor of the instant workplace. However, the Plaintiff first left the instant workplace with a view to getting a list on the part of the instant workplace. However, the Plaintiff first left the workplace. The Plaintiff again went to the Defendant C, and the Defendant C was to receive KRW 300,000 from the Plaintiff’s test, and Defendant C went to the instant workplace with the instant vehicle located at the instant workplace.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.08.18 2014가단3034

-창원지방법원 2021.02.02 2020고단3874

-부산지방법원 2017.02.16 2016나44711

-서울행정법원 2015.10.22 2014구합72088

-인천지방법원 2019.07.18 2017나3260