logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.25 2016나2007218
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 474,866,133 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from April 8, 2015 to October 25, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an Indonesia corporation with the purpose of protecting forests and selling timber, and the Defendant is the actual representative of Indonesia Corporation C (C; hereinafter “Indonesia Corporation”).

B. From 2008 to 2008, the non-party company commenced transactions with the Plaintiff’s cryp points and the Plaintiff’s cryp points from 2009. The method of such transactions was mainly made in the form of paying the amount of timber to the Plaintiff upon the supply of timber to the transaction partner designated by the non-party company

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap1-1, Gap2-1, and Gap3's purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the claim for damages or the agreed amount due to the tort as follows is a selective cause of claim.

The Defendant filed a claim for damages due to a tort with the Plaintiff’s physical food point and its ready-type point and, as a result of continuous payment of the price of timber, by deceiving the Plaintiff, did not pay the price of timber, and the Defendant did not comply with the promise to pay the amount of timber unpaid to the Plaintiff, but discontinued the non-party company and went back to Korea.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 489,541,027 of the unpaid timber price due to the above tort and damages for delay.

B. Around October 2012 and around December 2013, the Defendant: (a) drafted a letter of promise to pay the unpaid timber amount to the Plaintiff by the Defendant himself (A-2, A2-2); and (b) accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total sum of the unpaid timber amount of KRW 489,541,027 and delay damages.

3. The defendant's lawsuit of this case is brought against the defendant who is only a director of the non-party company.

arrow