(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나8835

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나8835

지체상금 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 8,043,232 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from September 24, 2014 to July 15, 2015 against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (the total dismissal of KRW 42,429,260 in compensation for delay) on the scope of the judgment of this court, and the defendant only filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, by claiming damages equivalent to KRW 42,429,260 in the estimated sales loss for the six-month period during which the plaintiff could have been able to obtain due to the reduction of the Plaintiff’s 10,054,040 and the new delivery points. It is clear that the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (the total dismissal of KRW 10,054,040 in compensation for delay and damages equivalent to the estimated sales loss).

Therefore, the damages claim amounting to 10,054,040 won is only subject to the judgment of the court.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that due to the defendant's non-compliance of the delivery period, the plaintiff suffered damages only 33,469,950 won calculated by deducting 10,054,040 won for delayed delay from 43,523,990 won for the goods of this case from 154 days in return for the goods of this case, and that the defendant is liable to compensate for the above 10,054,040 won.

The defendant asserts that, due to life saving, etc., the order of the goods of this case in China is delayed, and that the import of the goods of this case can be made on or around March 2014 due to its color, etc., all of the plaintiff's husband E and the delivery of the goods of this case was conducted, and that the number of days delayed in the process of filing an objection against the central 119 rescue team of the plaintiff National Emergency Management Agency is not attributable to the defendant.

B. We examine the judgment, and according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant pursuant to the contract of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.10.04 2016나2682

-서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017나2040113

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.07.15 2014가단30806

-서울고등법원 2018.07.19 2017나2058633

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.01.22 2015가합101460