(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.12.20 2017나50235

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) 부산고등법원 2017.12.20 2017나50235

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning Defendant C is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the following items are used or added to the judgment of the court of the first instance, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

In the third place, each "this court" of not more than 10 shall be deemed to be "the first instance court".

Part 4, from Part 14 to Part 19, the judgment on the claim against Defendant C is made by the following: (a) the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, Mimz fire, and golf respect is made: “1) the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, C, Mimz fire, and golf respect”; (b) the part is either the purport of the entire purport of the and the pleadings, or the same is different from the part below; (c) the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s argument, is difficult to believe, and the submission of the evidence to the Plaintiff, including the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① The Plaintiff’s assertion was that “1 cm x 3 cm left-hand side of the instant accident, or 3 cm on the left-hand side of the 3 cm.”

However, in full view of the results of the first instance court’s entrustment of medical record appraisal and the result of the fact-finding on the Korea Medical Association of this court, the injury inflicted on the plaintiff’s Mapo-gu and the neighboring organizations is highly likely to be a direct compromise with golf loans, and in the case of golf machines, it is possible to be a direct compromise. However, if the front screen wall is applied to the front screen wall and it is protruding out as alleged by the plaintiff, it is deemed that the possibility of such injury is low due to such second shock.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.06 2017나17442

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.02 2016나48739

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.27 2015나27988

-대구고등법원 2018.11.15 2018나20058

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.09 2016나12907