(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.05.27 2015나8967 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2016.05.27 2015나8967

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of this court concerning the main defense is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. On October 2008, the Defendant: (a) stolen and attempted rice straw worth KRW 500,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff; and (b) destroyed and damaged rice straw worth KRW 1,000,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff by means of crushinging straw straw in the straw knife, thereby causing material and mental damage to the Plaintiff; and (c) accordingly, (d) the Plaintiff should pay compensation for material damage KRW 1,50,000,000,000 as compensation for physical damage and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, stating that “The Defendant: (a) stolen and attempted rice strawet worth KRW 500,000,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff around October 208; and (b) destroyed and destroyed the Plaintiff’s rice strawet by crushinging the amount equivalent to KRW 1,00,000,000,000 for 50,000 won for strawet and its delay damages to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant paid damages to the Plaintiff (former District Court 2013Da6225, hereinafter “instant previous lawsuit”).

Although the Plaintiff filed a suit, on July 16, 2013, was sentenced to a dismissal ruling on the ground of lack of evidence, and the judgment became final and conclusive. According to the above acknowledged facts, even though the Plaintiff did not clearly distinguish the part on property damage and the part on mental damage in the previous suit of this case, the Plaintiff did not clearly distinguish the part on property damage and the part on mental damage in the previous suit of this case, for property damage, the total amount of KRW 600,000,000,000,000 excluding the above KRW 60,000,000,000 (=50,000,000 - 6,000,000,000) from the total amount of damage claim, the property claim in the

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가단19256

-울산지방법원 2016.10.05 2016가단56679

-서울고등법원 2015.05.14 2014나29249

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018가단132159

-부산지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나1922