(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나23854

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 2019.11.21 2019나23854

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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff requested the defendant to transport the article to the defendant, and accordingly the defendant proceeded with the packing director.

The Plaintiff set up TV owned by the Plaintiff on the following day (hereinafter “TV of this case”), and discovered a phenomenon that leads to a vertical line on the screen.

Since this is caused by the damage that occurred during the transportation of the Defendant, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 596,00 for the repair cost of TV of this case.

B. If Gap’s judgment on the Defendant’s liability for damages added the purport of the entire pleadings and the arguments in the film and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant’s “D” transport, and accordingly, the Defendant proceeded with the packing director on August 30, 2018, and the defect appearing in several vertical lines on the television of this case is observed, and such defect may occur when the PDTV’s panel is shocked.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments on the evidence above, namely, ① it is difficult to conclude that the TV of this case was damaged by the TV of this case due to shocks occurred in the process of directors from the time when the Plaintiff purchased the said TV of this case at the time of directors, ② the fact that at least the cargo was in a state that was not damaged before transport was proved by the Plaintiff, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the TV of this case was in a state that was not damaged before the time when the Plaintiff was directors, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case must be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is justified.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.09.27 2017고정720

-인천지방법원 2013.08.09 2013노1343

-서울북부지방법원 2018.08.21 2017나3114

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.09.07 2016가단70495

-대구지방법원 2015.06.05 2014노2588