(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2016.10.12 2016가단1911

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) 대구지방법원김천지원 2016.10.12 2016가단1911

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, on March 2013, belonging to the plaintiff, who is capable of running a mobile log and fishing operations, sold the plaintiff with the case processing machine outside of smartphone (hereinafter "the machine of this case") at KRW 118,701,00, and actually, it was impossible for the plaintiff to drive the machine of this case with the machine of this case. Accordingly, during the month until the defendant substituted the machine of this case by the other machine, the plaintiff was unable to do so, and therefore, the plaintiff suffered losses in total of KRW 171,60,00 won (= KRW 62,40,000 + KRW 10,000 + 240,26 days) since he was ordered to do so by Mabes Co., Ltd., Ltd., the main contractor of this case by replacing the machine of this case with the other machine of this case.

2. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the party who purchased the instant machinery from the Defendant is the Plaintiff. Rather, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the Plaintiff transferred KRW 130,00,00 to the account of Eul Tech around March 27, 2013, and then remitted the price of the instant machinery from the said account. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff sent the letter of performance assurance and the letter of intent to purchase the machinery to the Defendant e-mail with regard to the sale and purchase of the instant machinery, and the Plaintiff sent the letter of intent to purchase the machinery to the Defendant e-mail. Accordingly, it is reasonable to see that the party who purchased the instant machinery from the Defendant as the Plaintiff e-mail. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the buyer of the instant machinery is the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.05.30 2018고단982

-대구지방법원김천지원 2017.11.23 2016가단7575

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.08.25 2016가단12396

-수원지방법원 2019.10.18 2019고단3767

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.02.06 2012고단1527