beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff regarding the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the occurrence of the liability for damages is the same as "1. The occurrence of the liability for damages" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Scope of damages.
A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, 96 copies were destroyed by the total 1,440 copies of the Nowon-gu Panel (72 boxes) and the remaining 1,244 copies were not sold at an arm’s length price, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages as follows.
(1) In cases of 96 price damaged: 6,037,785 won (2) expenses for UPS and FESX : 929,245 won (3) 1,440 won: 754,000 won: (4) Expenses for 100 won for calculation of KRW 2,021,40: USD 18 ($ 56) ¡¿ 1,123 won x 100 x 100 x 1,244 x 53,352,672 won: ($ 56 x 1,123 won) x 1,243,52,672 won for calculation of KRW 53,352,672.
B. 1) In full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 11 as to the damaged 96 copies and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff's 96 of the Nowon-gu Panel was destroyed due to the accident in this case, and thereby, the defendant does not specifically dispute the fact that the plaintiff's 6,037,785 won (96 x 56 x 1,123 won at the time of the accident in this case x 1,123 won.
) The fact that the Plaintiff suffered loss is recognized. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s liability for compensation is recognized. (2) The written evidence No. 12 regarding the judgment of UPS and FEXton’s cost is difficult to recognize a specific causal relationship as to whether the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the liability is not recognized.
According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 13 as to the part of the inspection cost and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is after the accident in this case.