logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.01.12 2016나7248
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, as a ground for liability, have caused conflicts due to the settlement of accounts while engaging in the business of selling domestically the goods directly purchased from a foreign country. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant, with the Plaintiff’s head debt from the Plaintiff’s house located before the Plaintiff’s house located in Busan Shipping Daegu C building 908, putting the Plaintiff’s head debt over the bottom of the Plaintiff’s house, and then putting the Plaintiff into a drinking room, head, shoulder, etc., for about two weeks of medical treatment (hereinafter “the instant injury”). During the instant injury, it was impossible to increase the Plaintiff’s boody, and the Plaintiff’s boody portion of the bood portion of the bood part of the bood part of the bood part of the bood part of the bood part of the 2016300,000,0000 evidence or evidence of evidence No. 297, the Defendant’s assertion or evidence No. 2017.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal acts.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages against the Defendant by expressing that the Plaintiff was solely agreed with the Defendant on April 28, 2015, and that the Defendant did not want to punish the Defendant during the investigation process due to the instant injury. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim damages against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit).

However, as seen earlier, the limitation of liability seems to have been caused to this case due to the settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant, and in the process, the plaintiff was subject to the suspension of indictment.

arrow