(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2015나35699

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2015나35699

손해배상(지)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the “attached List” as the “Indication of the Attached Design”, and each drawing indicating the Attached Design in the attached design of the court of first instance is added to the indication of the attached design of the court of first instance, and except for the application of paragraphs (c) and (3)(b) of Article 2 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Parts to be dried;

A. In determining a claim for mental damage caused by infringement of a design right (the part falling under Article 2(c) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance), the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant suffered a serious mental suffering due to infringement of the design right of this case, and sought compensation of KRW 20 million against the Defendant.

Unless there are special circumstances to deem that mental suffering caused by property damage is serious to the extent that the compensation for property damage cannot be compensated by itself, it shall be charged for property damage (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da38971, Jul. 10, 1998). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a serious mental suffering to the extent that the compensation for property damage cannot be compensated by the Plaintiff. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the infringement of the Plaintiff’s personal legal interests, the design right is a design that is, “the shape, pattern, or color of an article or a combination thereof so that it may cause aesthetic impression through the view of view,” and it is difficult to view it as a personal legal interest. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the fact that the design right is a personal legal interest cannot be accepted.

(b) Loss of credit, etc.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 7. 10. 선고 96다38971 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단30071

-창원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016나51044

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.06.22 2016가단15888

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.19 2014가단13829

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단5196190