(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017나4914 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017나4914

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, in addition to the second to third to fourth to fourth to fourth to the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment related to the non-performance of the obligation to deliver goods such as computers, etc.). Thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In order to recover damages or unjust enrichment equivalent to the value of the goods alleged by the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant, the part of the repair shall be proved that the Defendant’s possession of the goods owned by the Plaintiff, but it is impossible for the Plaintiff to recover the said goods because the said goods were destroyed or lost.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entries and videos of the evidence Nos. 8 through 12, 16, 17, and 21 are possessing the goods of the Plaintiff’s electric charge board, computer, television, and bed against the Plaintiff’s assertion within the cel currently. In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries of the evidence No. 19 alone are in a situation where it is impossible for the Plaintiff to recover them. The status of the receipt and handling of the case No. 19 in the case and the accident No. 19, the Plaintiff appears to refer to the written decision for

It is stated to the effect that it is impossible to remove the goods because it does not bring any action, and that the plaintiff subsequently set the date on which the goods owned by the defendant were possessed by the court decision and brought them again, which seems to be due to the fact that Paragraph 8 of the instant conciliation decision stated that not only the right to recover the said goods but also the obligation to restore the goods previously owned by the defendant to the above heading room.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not unilaterally take out the goods owned by the plaintiff, but goods owned by the defendant under the above provision.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.27 2018가단5237988

-창원지방법원 2015.08.12 2015고정587

-대전지방법원 2020.08.12 2019가단2725

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.13 2020노470

-부산지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단5382