(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.02 2013가단5100562

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 2014.10.02 2013가단5100562

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 2,645,784 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from June 21, 2014 to October 2, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with D who operates a restaurant in the name of “C” in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu as shown in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “C”).

B. On February 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00 on February 18, 2013, issued an order to sell a single shot (one shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot snas

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the Defendant’s taking advantage of the said sugar, there was no guidance to the effect that the Defendant would cause the bones of the boomer.

C. Meanwhile, the damages covered by the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract are as follows.

Article 9 (Compensation for Loss) In the case of the instant insurance contract for “production” as stated in the insurance policy (insurance Policy) manufactured, sold, supplied, or constructed by the insured (person insured) within the coverage area indicated in the insurance policy (insurance Policy), the following damages suffered by the insured (person insured) due to the occurrence of an insured event caused by the production during the insurance period, for which the insured (person insured) bears legal liability for physical disability or property damage to the victim as a result of the occurrence of an insured event during the insurance period:

1. The fact that the insured (person subject to insurance) has no dispute over statutory damages (based on recognition) to be paid to the victim, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 8-2, and Eul evidence No. 8-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (1) are prepared by the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that they are bound to contain a protopy price, and that there is a risk that the protory price of a protopy when a protory is held, on the ground that there is a risk that the protory price of a protory is proto, inside, etc., so the protory price of

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.16 2014나61004

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.11.13 2017가단36488

-광주지방법원 2020.06.18 2019가단509200

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.19 2014가합1941

-서울중앙지방법원 2011.10.18 2010가합77601