logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.28 2014가단25033
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 29,304,50 per annum for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 28, 2013 to February 25, 2015.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 13,630km from Defendant C, which he/she became aware of as a result of the introduction by Defendant B, in order to collect the copper extracted from the waste boom, and paid the amount equivalent to the above sales price to Defendant C on the same day.

B. At that time, the Plaintiff would be able to extract 32% of the weight from the above waste transport pipe between Defendant C at that time, and the value of the above goods was determined as above, but it was revealed that as a result of the brush dissolution, it was impossible to extract brush from the above goods.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s primary claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B conspired with Defendant C and acquired the amount equivalent to the price of goods from the Plaintiff, and sought payment of the amount equivalent to the above purchase price as damages for tort against Defendant B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B belongs to the Plaintiff and obtained the amount equivalent to the price of goods from the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff. Rather, according to the description of evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant B, but the said Defendant was subject to a non-prosecution disposition that is not guilty of the charge. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the conjunctive claim is without merit. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the defects of the Plaintiff, who acted as a broker of the above purchase and sale contract, and the liability for warranty under the Civil Act is an objective nature and performance that can be expected in terms of trade norms.

arrow