logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.24 2012나99336
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff 12, 17, 25, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 42, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 75, 76, 79, 81, 84, 85, 94, 94.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this court used as a basis for this part of the facts are as follows: “Defendant SK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”)” in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance; “Defendant SK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”) was divided into SK Co., Ltd. and SK Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”) in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and “E-Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SK”) was divided into SK Co., Ltd. and SK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK”) after changing its trade name into SKK Co., Ltd.; and “SK” was divided into SK Co., Ltd. and E-K chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) after changing its trade name into SKK Co., Ltd.; and therefore, the rights and obligations pertaining to this case

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The reason why this Court is used in relation to Defendant SK, GS, and Hyundai is as stated in the pertinent part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (as such, the part on the 12th to 17th to 19th to that of the first instance judgment). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The reason why this Court is used in relation to Defendant S-Oil is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (as to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court No. 20 to No. 216), except for adding “The circumstance alleged by the Plaintiffs or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in light of the aforementioned circumstances is insufficient to readily conclude that Defendant S-Oil committed a joint tort in relation to the participation in collusion or aiding and abetting the collusion by other Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.” Thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (as to No. 17th to No. 20 to No. 216 of the judgment of the first instance court).

C. As seen earlier, Defendant SK, GS, and Hyundai are from April 1, 2004 to June 10, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the parties”).

arrow