logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2015나69418
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case as stated in paragraph (2) (Articles 2, 9 through 6, and 3, 17 through 4, 5). Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Defendant B shall each be treated as “Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”).”

B. On the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term “spawn” in the 15th sentence is considered as “spawn”.

C. On the 3rd to 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance was followed as follows.

According to the statement No. 1 and the testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial, B may recognize the fact that the Defendant had worked in the office of a certified judicial scrivener operated by the Defendant from October 22, 2009 to January 6, 2010. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, even after the termination of the employment relationship between B and the Defendant, had the appearance as if he had engaged in the duties as a certified judicial scrivener. It is difficult to recognize the “execution-related relationship”, which is the requirement for employer liability as stipulated in Article 756 of the Civil Act, solely on the ground that the place where the Plaintiff met B was a certified judicial scrivener of the Defendant’s operation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow