(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.09 2015나55367

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 2016.06.09 2015나55367

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part against Defendant A in the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows:

Defendant A shall pay 8,647,800 won to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts 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 Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 1, 2014, the Defendants unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract, and unilaterally requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant camping site, and the Plaintiff was bound to withdraw from the camping site on August 29, 2014.

In other words, since the Defendants violated the obligation to guarantee the contract period stipulated in Article 4(1) of the instant contract (five-year contract period), they should compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of the deposit pursuant to the said provision. The Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 40 million,000,000,000, which was already paid from KRW 100,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants asserted the claim for damages due to deception and the claim for the return of deposit amount, which were approved by the Office of Education in relation to the instant contract, did not complete the instant camping facilities, and had the Plaintiff enter into the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff that all the facilities as camping grounds are installed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff introduced the instant camping site of KRW 85,851,50 to the instant camping site.

Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 50 million out of the above facility cost as compensation for tort, and the defendants are also obligated to pay the deposit amount of KRW 10 million which has not yet been refunded.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants unilaterally terminated the instant contract solely on the basis of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6, and evidence No. 17-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants unilaterally terminated the instant contract.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the defendants made a deposit around June 8, 2014.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.05.01 2013가단106556

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.22 2015가단102627

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.08 2017가단208778

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.02.13 2018고단4440

-인천지방법원 2015.12.16 2015고단1881