(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.27 2014나12422

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.27 2014나12422

손해배상(건)

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 is a company selling a digital compound, etc. manufactured by Samsung Electronic, and the Defendant is a person who engages in cargo transport business using one’s own share.

B. On August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for the loading of goods on the second floor of the warehouse of the logistics center located in Southern-si.

However, a driver whose name the Defendant’s employer is unable to know, when entering the digital composite machine (the model name CLX-9201NP; hereinafter “instant composite machine”) with the Plaintiff’s market value of KRW 2,493,480, which is the Plaintiff’s owner, has lowered the lost water, and thereby, the instant composite machine was destroyed to the extent that it could not be repaired.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, as the employer of the fork driver’s license company, shall compensate for the damages caused by the destruction of the complex of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,493,480 equivalent to the value of the complex term of this case.

Although the defendant argues to the purport that the plaintiff's negligence should be considered in the recognition of damages, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's negligence in the course of the damage of the complex of this case (the defendant did not notify the plaintiff that the plaintiff may have a quizzle in the complex of this case. However, according to the images of the evidence No. 3, the complex of this case appears to be in a relatively stable state, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was notified of the duty of disclosure due to special circumstances such as the damage at the time of the damage to the complex of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had the duty of disclosure in the course of transport or loading)

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.05 2019가단3622

-창원지방법원 2015.11.10 2014나13581

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나4363

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.19 2016고단3023

-광주지방법원 2017.01.18 2015가단516392