(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.20 2015나2052778

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) 서울고등법원 2017.01.20 2015나2052778

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “The decision on the defendant’s defense (No. 8. 12 ~ end)” of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following two cases; therefore, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part to be used again; and

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense is that the defendant could exercise the above right to claim damages around November 18, 201, which was the first instance court's ruling that recognized the defendant's liability for damages caused by the defendant's false or exaggerated advertising in the lawsuit filed by several buyers at the time of entering the apartment of this case or at the latest. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 23, 2014, which was three years after the lawsuit of this case, the right to claim damages caused by false or exaggerated advertising under the Advertising and Advertising Act had already expired before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Display and Advertising Act (amended by Act No. 12380, Jan. 28, 2014) and Article 11(2) of the former Display and Advertising Act (amended by Act No. 12380, Jan. 28, 2014) provide that “The right to claim damages from false or exaggerated advertisements under the Display and Advertising Act shall expire three years after the date on which the right to claim damages is exercised.

The term "date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act refers to the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator actually and specifically. The presumption or awareness of the damage occurrence is not sufficient, and the harmful act is also deemed to constitute a tort. That is, the date when the injured party becomes aware of the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of the damage and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage, etc., as a recognition of the facts requiring the tort, are considered in fact

참조조문

-민법 제766조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

-표시ㆍ광고의 공정화에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.1.20.선고 2015나2052778 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.29 2016가단5104749

-대법원 2017.06.15 2017다212118

-서울고등법원 2015.12.17 2015나2036073

-대법원 2020.04.09 2019다246573