logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.09.23 2013가단44451
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses on August 13, 2014.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff was cut with a saw saw that the plaintiff was cut at the defendant's house by using a saw saw, and the defendant was suffering from the damage caused by cutting part of the left part of the saw on the electric saw because the plaintiff et al. lost a pure concentration. Since the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above defendant's tort, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages, the defendant is claiming the payment of the amount stated in the main claim.

B. On March 23, 2011, a settlement agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant accident. The Defendant performed the said settlement agreement by paying KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff returned the said KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant again, and the Defendant without any legal cause owns the said KRW 10,000,000 without any legal ground, thereby claiming for the return of unjust enrichment and the payment of KRW 10,00,000 for delay damages.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8 (including each number) in determining the claim for damages due to a tort, the fact that the plaintiff suffered a serious injury to the left-hand part of the elbows and handouts and 1 and 2 balance while cutting down trees owned by the defendant is recognized, but the result of the plaintiff's newspaper itself is insufficient to acknowledge whether such damage was caused by the defendant's tort, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

B. In full view of the fact that there is no dispute over determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the purport of the entire pleadings, a reconciliation contract was concluded on March 23, 201 with respect to the above accident, that the Defendant shall pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

arrow