logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.09.21 2016나12253
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial is a person mediating the transfer or acquisition of a private taxi transport business license, and the Defendant is a person who was a private taxi driver.

B. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff intended to take over a personal taxi transport business license of KRW 95 million to C, and upon request to identify the transferor, remitted KRW 3.5 million to the down payment on the same day. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 45 million out of the transfer payment.

C. Meanwhile, around February 16, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 0.149% with blood alcohol content, and caused a traffic accident while driving his rocketing taxi, which led to the Defendant’s revocation of the Defendant’s personal taxi transport business license.

(hereinafter the Defendant’s private taxi transport business license (hereinafter “the instant private taxi license”) where the aforementioned grounds for revocation arose.

Around February 20, 2015, the Defendant told C to the effect that “A person would sell his/her own taxi transport business license while having sent his/her drinking traffic accident.”

Accordingly, the Defendant and C conspired to transfer the license to the Plaintiff before the cancellation of the private taxi license of this case, and to divide the price by taking account of the fact that there is time interval between the cancellation of the driver license of this case and the notification of the prior viewing in charge of the private taxi transport business license.

around that time, the defendant issued C with the career certificate, certificate of personal seal, certificate of private taxi driver, etc. according to the above public invitation with C.

In the process of the above public offering around February 20, 2015, the Defendant asked C to the effect that “There is no way to change the number of a private taxi that caused a traffic accident, and there is no way to change the number,” and C told C to the Defendant that “I directly report the loss of a license plate to the police station and make a report on the loss of the license plate, and if you go to the viewing, I change it to another number.”

arrow