(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.08 2018나658

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 2018.06.08 2018나658

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. Around December 12, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement as if the Plaintiff had brought about the Clurbags in the laundry operated by the Plaintiff, although there was no loss of Clurbags in the laundry operated by the Plaintiff, at the time of the police investigation.

As a result, the plaintiff was doubtful from the neighboring merchants, was hospitalized for about 10 days for mental and medical treatment, and was unable to operate a laundry any longer due to the outbreak of mental fission.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages amounting to 8,00,000 won and damages for delay.

2. We examine whether the Defendant, at the time of the police investigation, made a false statement as if he lost the Plaintiff’s laundry white paper, even though the Defendant did not lose the laundry.

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: ① the defendant's studio CCTV at the time of the case, the defendant's studio in the original room at the time of the case, ② the defendant's studio was clearly recorded in the studio of the defendant's studio; ② the CCTV installed at the defendant's studio to the studio of the plaintiff's studio was stored in the shopping bag containing strawing, and ③ the defendant was in charge of the above shopping bags at the above studio and worked at the office. According to the police investigation results, in light of the fact that the defendant's studio from the above studio to the office of the defendant was not in possession of the studio in the CCTV located on the same line, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiff's falsity at the time of the investigation.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case must be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.05.12 2015나13766

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.10.27 2016가단4404

-대전지방법원 2018.11.22 2018노1381

-부산지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나52361

-대전지방법원 2019.01.10 2018노1706