(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.12.05 2018나215412

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.12.05 2018나215412

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of the instant case by the court of the first instance regarding the instant case are as follows: (a) the “No. 5” of the first instance judgment No. 5 is changed to “No. 6; and (b) the “No. 9” of the first instance judgment No. 6 is changed to “No. 17”; and (c) the “AE” applied for the issuance of a non-prosecution disposition against Defendant B, H, G, and E, but was dismissed on January 11, 2019.

A. A. A. Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) provides that “No. 18 shall be added to the Plaintiff’s assertion added to this Court, and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same with that of the Plaintiff.

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 on the assertion of tort due to the violation of the Housing Management Operator and Business Operator Selection Guidelines applies the provisions of the Housing Management Operator and Business Operator Selection Guidelines, which are the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport guidelines, despite the application of the said guidelines, the Defendants committed an illegal act to arbitrarily select the company, and the Plaintiff was not confirmed, and the Plaintiff was subject to a fine for negligence due to no opening documents. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable for compensation for damages caused to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff’s determination of the selection method in the Plaintiff’s notice on the selection of rooftop waterproof Construction Enterprise as “by restricted competitive bidding, qualification examination,” is recognized as follows. According to the results of the fact inquiry and the purport of the argument in both countries, according to Article 13(1) of the Guidelines on the Selection of Housing Management Business Entities and Business Operator, the assessment body was determined as “in the case of selecting housing management operator and business operator by the qualification examination system, the selection of the assessment committee is unclear, the criteria for equipment and qualification examination set forth in the Guidelines are not presented at the time of public announcement:

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2018.08.03 2018구합57797

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2018나57423

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.25 2019가합109293

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.19 2017가합1179

-부산지방법원 2018.12.07 2018나43033