beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, jointly with Defendant B, KRW 50,189,70, and KRW 35,132,790 among them, and each of them.
Reasons
1. The cause of the instant claim is as shown in the attached Form. Defendant C is jointly liable for tort, Defendant C is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 50,189,700, and KRW 100,000,000 for operating losses for three years, and KRW 50,000,000 as part of the damages for operating losses for three years.
2. First, the claim is considered to be one.
A. In the case of Defendant B, the evidence alone presented by Defendant B is insufficient to reverse the determination of the facts of the relevant criminal judgment. As such, Party B, the final conviction, as well as Defendant B, can be acknowledged as tort liability based on the valuable evidence in this case.
Defendant B asserted to the effect that the amount equivalent to the resale price should be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages because it is possible for the Plaintiff to resell that it is not a household among the golf machines recovered by the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize the fact that it is possible to resell the said money only with the entry of Eul 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Although Defendant B argues for offsetting negligence due to the Plaintiff’s negligence, it is not permissible for Defendant B to claim that a person who intentionally committed an illegal act by using the victim’s negligence, reduces his responsibility on the ground of the victim’s negligence.
B. In the case of Defendant C, each of the statements in Articles 3, 4, and 8-2 may be acknowledged that Defendant C is a party to the contract by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings, and each of the statements in Articles 1 through 4-2 shall not interfere with the above recognition. As such, Defendant C is liable for non-performance with Defendant B, and is jointly liable for damages to the Plaintiff.
However, in light of all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the details and contents of the contract, the process of implementing the contract, and the degree of benefits of Defendant C, it is reasonable to limit Defendant C’s liability to 70% of the Plaintiff’s damages under the principle of fairness.
3.For the following claims: