logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.18 2017가합8236
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C, and Defendant D of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are those who engage in the business of growing pigs in the name of “F” in the name of “F” in the instant city E (the nominal owner of the said farm is Plaintiff B), and Defendant C is those who engage in the business of manufacturing, selling, and installing ventilation control systems, etc. for livestock farming with the trade name of “G”, and Defendant D is those who engage in the business of selling and installing electric installations for livestock farming with the trade name of “H”.

B. On December 2015, Plaintiff B entered into a contract with Defendant C to establish an “I system” (hereinafter “instant system”) under which the said farm can be subject to remote control, such as ventilation and temperature control (hereinafter “instant farm”), and purchased the instant system from Defendant C to establish it in the instant farm.

The instant system is composed of “heat control tower” and “J”, regardless of the Internet access, directly installed in the pertinent money company and directly installed in the air and in the event that “the control roller” fails to work normally due to power failure, etc., and “J” did not establish the instant farm at the Plaintiff’s request at the time of the installation of the instant system.

C. Around that time, Plaintiff A entered into an electric installations contract with Defendant D for electric installations necessary for the installation of the instant system. Accordingly, Defendant D had the electric installations construction with the content of installing indoors, etc. on the electric wave (26 units) installed by Plaintiff A, which had already been installed.

On September 16, 2016, at the farm of this case, the rapid increase in the temperature of pigs (797 dubs) raised by the plaintiffs by exposure to high temperature during a long time (4 hours).

arrow