(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.22 2016나2037974

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) 서울고등법원 2017.03.22 2016나2037974

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

The reason why this court should explain about the primary claim is that the plaintiff's primary claim should be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the plaintiff's assertion of tort due to the plaintiff's global brand, and the violation of the duty to notify the defendant's global brand, and the violation of the duty to notify the plaintiff, taking into account the plaintiff's re

[Supplementary Decision] The Plaintiff asserts that, at the time of the preparation of the instant agreement by Defendant Global brand, and A, at the time of the enactment of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff was not in the position of the master of the master of the master of the master of the △△ Party C, and that the conclusion of the instant master of the master of the master of the master of the Defendant Cream was likely to be delayed, and that the master of the master of the master of the △ Party C, and that the master of the master of the master of the master of the △ Party C, based thereon, could not be carried out at the time of the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of disclosure, and that during January 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff would not interfere with the Plaintiff’s delivery of the goods at the time of the distribution of the goods at the time of △△ Party C, and that the master of the master of the master of the master of the master of the Republic of Korea could not be made in advance.

In property transaction, where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the other party would not enter into the contract or at least did not enter into the contract on such terms or conditions if one of the parties notified the other party of specific circumstances that the contract may affect the validity of the contract, or may endanger the other party to secure his/her rights, the other party is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da97076 Decided July 24, 2014). First, Defendant Cracks’ book is located on the side of Defendant Cracks.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2013다97076 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2015노1950

-부산지방법원 2017.02.08 2015가합40305

-부산지방법원 2019.11.20 2018가합44186

-부산고등법원 2018.03.29 2017나51719

-수원지방법원 2021.03.31 2020나54562