(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2019나112

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 2019.06.13 2019나112

손해배상

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff exhibited one point of the works from December 20, 2016 to December 25, 2016 before the Dsansansanment supervised by C, etc.

B. The Defendant completed the said commemorative exhibition with the Secretary-General of C, removed the works, sealed them, and returned them to the exhibit writers, and the Plaintiff’s works were lost during that process.

C. The plaintiff has been awarded a prize for E around 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 9, 12, Eul evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. Since the Defendant alleged to have lost the Plaintiff’s work, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21 million in total and KRW 26 million in mental consolation money due to the loss of the Plaintiff’s work.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant is not the defendant who is not a party to claim compensation for damages, and the defendant is not a party to claim compensation for damages (the main defense). 2) The plaintiff's liability for damages caused by the loss of the plaintiff's work is not the defendant's responsibility.

3. In a lawsuit for the performance of judgment as to the main defense of safety, the plaintiff's standing as the party itself is replaced by the judgment as to the propriety of the claim. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim for performance is absorbed into the judgment as to the propriety of the claim, the plaintiff and the person asserted as the obligor

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26499 delivered on July 25, 1989). In this case, the Defendant asserted as the obligor to perform the obligation to compensate for damages is entitled to be a party.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability for damages, the Defendant lost the Plaintiff’s work by negligence even though the Defendant removed the work exhibited in the D Memorial and took charge of returning it to the exhibiter, and thus, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages therefrom.

The defendant is not the principal.

참조판례

-대법원 1989. 7. 25. 선고 88다카26499 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.07.18 2018나11563

-인천지방법원 2013.08.30 2011가합22883

-대구지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나3903

-광주지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나56038