(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.23 2015가단20377

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.23 2015가단20377

손해배상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant makes food feed collected from local governments in Yangju-si as food and operates food recycling business (mutual name: D) that are supplied to both-generation farmers.

B. On April 8, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the deposit amount of KRW 20 million (one million out of the set-off disposition, the remainder of KRW 10 million was paid by April 18, 2014), and three million monthly rent of KRW 3 million (hereinafter “the lease agreement in this case”) with respect to the fish mooring stations on the ground (trade name: L farm (trade name before modification: M farm; hereinafter “instant farm”).

b. The Defendant agrees to supply feed to the farm of this case, and pays 20,000 won per ton as wages of workers.

c. Existing chickens and facilities are recognized as owned by the lessor.

C. From April 2014 to January 2015, the Plaintiff received food feed from the Defendant while engaging in the mass farming at the instant farm.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been supplied with food feed that had not been properly destroyed by the Defendant for about one year, while engaging in the mass farming in the instant farm. Accordingly, the number of 11,604 out of the total 34,000 water that the Plaintiff purchased and raised additionally in the instant farm at the time of the instant lease agreement was abolished.

In addition, the plaintiff sold 22,396 the remaining 22,396 water from the product value to the processing company due to the decline in the spawning rate.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount claimed to the Plaintiff out of the total sum of the 11,604 value of the wasted 11,604 value of the mountain and the 22,396 value of the mountain and the 22,396 value of the mountain and the amount calculated by deducting the market value of the mountain and the amount of property damage caused by a decrease in the rate of noise.

3. Judgment No. 7-2

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.09.28 2017고정1595

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.30 2015고단2801

-수원지방법원 2014.10.01 2013고단2801

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2013.02.05 2012고단1163

-창원지방법원 2014.05.15 2011가합2012