logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.22 2013가단10439
손해배상(기)
Text

The defendant shall pay 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 9, 2013 to January 22, 2016 and the next day.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

From May 2006, the Plaintiff was supplied with a low resistance machine from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant low resistance machine”) and manufactured the mal lighting stabilizing machine (hereinafter “the instant stable machine”) and supplied them to two original e-mail Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “dual e-mail”).

From June 2010 to June 2011, 2012, the two-way sent a certificate of content to demand compensation for replacement costs of KRW 750,000,000 on the ground that the defect occurred in the stable period supplied by the Plaintiff during the period from June 2010 to June 201.

(이하 ‘이 사건 피해보상요구액’이라 한다). 한편 소외 B(상호 C, 이하 ‘소외인’이라 한다)은 피고로부터 이 사건 저항기와 동일한 저항기를 납품받아 형광등 안정기를 제작하여 주식회사 선일일렉콤, 주식회사 비티전자에게 납품하였는데, 위 안정기를 부품으로 하여 제작한 형광등에도 점등되지 않는 등의 하자가 발생하였다.

Accordingly, the appraisal of the defect in the instant resistance was conducted in the instant court 2014Gahap4322 (principal lawsuit) and the damages for 2014Gahap4339 (Counterclaim).

(hereinafter “The appraisal of this case”). According to the appraisal result of this case, the resistance of this case is deemed to have been partially increased by a certain section, and there is an independent defect to view that there was a certain and brush carbon in the process of exploitation, but on the ground that there was no problem in the short-term test result, the temperature increase in the circuit surrounding the stable period in which the resistance of this case was inserted is pointed out as the main cause of the increase in the temperature of the resistance of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 11 statements (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), which are significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, are examined.

arrow