logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.10.15 2019나13083
손해배상(기)
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following dismissal or addition:

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2.2. The term “the defendant” from the defendant market shall be read as “the defendant market”.

The defendant of the 4th parallel "the 8th parallel" is the defendant's "the head of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Gu (hereinafter referred to as the "the head of the Gu") to whom the construction permit affairs are delegated by the defendant market."

4 The defendant's "the defendant" of the 10th place shall be deemed to be the "the head of interesting Gu".

4) Under 10 to 11, “The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages equivalent to KRW 40,969,69,696, and KRW 1,926,520,356, which were the interest accrued between March 31, 2016 and November 30, 2017, which was the date of full payment of the price, and the total amount of the lost profit due to the delay of 771 days in the construction of the instant facilities (i.e., interest on the deposit of the instant facilities KRW 191,440,35,00) (i.e., KRW 1,967,490,052 (i.e., KRW 40,6969, KRW 1,6926, 526, 5365,000).”

5 8 pages “12 Certificate” shall be added to “B No. 15 through 24.”

From 5th to 6th 4th eth 9th eth eth eth eth eth e.g. “1st e.g. from e.

① Around April 2016, the head of Silung-gu decided whether to grant a building permit to the Plaintiff after receiving legal advice on the first adjudication. On May 2, 2016, Defendant Mayor requested the legal advice on countermeasures against the first adjudication and regarding future administrative procedures, and received the Defendant’s legal adviser’s opinion. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff that the non-provisional disposition was revoked according to the first adjudication. On May 23, 2016, the resident presentation meeting related to the building permit of the instant facility was held between May 30, 2016 and August 2016.

arrow