logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.21 2017나2004490
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the plaintiff filed a claim for restitution on the ground of cancellation of the contract with the defendant and the claim for damages due to nonperformance. The first instance court accepted the claim for restitution among them and dismissed the claim for damages.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to the claim for restitution as above.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of the witness B of the first instance trial, the witness C of the first instance trial, and the overall purport of the arguments by the appraiser E, the judgment of the court of first instance as to the cause of the claim ① is not equipped with the same parts as the entry in the CNC glass ma and cutting machine, and the list “the name of the omitted part” in the separate sheet in the washing machine subject to the contract No. 1 of this case and the washing machine subject to the contract No. 2 of this case. ② All the subject matter of each contract of this case are not operated normally from the time when the defendant installed and supplied the plaintiff, ③ the plaintiff requested the plaintiff to supplement the finished machinery and parts that the plaintiff had not complied with, and ④ the plaintiff's failure to comply with this, the fact that the defendant dispatched each contract of this case to the defendant on April 22, 2014.

According to this, since the parts necessary for the operation of the washing machine, cut, and washing machine, which the Defendant supplied to the Plaintiff, have not been operated normally due to the failure of the Defendant, the purpose of each of the contracts in this case is to make the Plaintiff a default.

arrow