(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.03 2014나44252

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.03 2014나44252

손해배상(자)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 753,028,566 won and 5% per annum from July 24, 2010 to February 3, 2015, and the following:

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the part of the reasons for the judgment i) is filled by or added to each of the following, and ii) the calculation table of damages is replaced by the attached calculation table of damages (influence of the increased urban daily wage), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. On the basis of the 4th 16-17th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 16-17th 0th 50 percent of the normal person’s assessment date ( September 24, 2013), this Court presumed “the end of the life expectancy shall be regarded as the end of April 14, 2043” to be “the end of the life expectancy shall be presumed to be 50 percent of the normal person’s assessment date ( July 24, 2010), so the remaining end shall be deemed to be May 2, 2041.”

A. Each of the 10, 13, and 19 set aside “ June 14, 2014,” respectively, shall be construed as “ January 14, 2015.”

A. 6. Giving up “148,49,693 won” to “138,916,042 won”

A. 6. To refer “72,263,07 won” to “68,391,684 won”

A. The 7th page "440,092,55 won" shall be "438,048,275 won".

every 7th 10 criminal statements "215,814,460 won" shall be deemed "21,233,760 won".

A. 7. To refer “59,88,512 won” to “61,392,368 won”

A. The 7th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 2th 2th 2th 19th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 201, and the 8th 2nd 553,028,566th 8th 2th 5th 3th 200: “The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff at a rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next 20th 3th 2015, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the scope of its duty to perform.”

3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages of this case is above.

참조조문

-민법

-민사소송법 제420조

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2020.06.17 2019나54095

-인천지방법원 2019.07.18 2018나72683

-인천지방법원 2019.12.05 2019나52945

-부산고등법원 2020.04.29 2019나56602

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.10 2019나71679