(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나17095

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 2019.12.20 2019나17095

손해배상(자)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 206,642,565 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from March 29, 2013 to December 20, 2019 against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A statement of calculation of damages in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, a statement of calculation of retirement allowances in attached Form 2, a statement of calculation of future treatment expenses in attached Form 3, and a statement of calculation of supplementary equipment in attached Form 4 shall be replaced respectively by that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The fourth to nine parallels in the judgment of the first instance shall be conducted in the following manner:

According to the results of the fact-finding conducted on G of the first instance court, the Plaintiff appears to have received basic pay, leave allowances, and other allowances regularly from July 1, 2012 to July. At the time of the instant accident, the total amount of basic pay, leave allowances, and other allowances is 3,702,639 won (basic pay 2,00,160, 1600, 1,652,479, and 50,000 won) around March 2013, which is the time of the instant accident. The Plaintiff’s monthly allowance was paid 66,672 won fixed, and thus, it should be included in income. However, even if there were circumstances where the Plaintiff received annual leave allowances for a considerable period of time in the past, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff continued to use the said additional allowances for a prolonged period of time by 95 months or more without having been paid the said additional allowances for the first five months or more (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da51975.).

As to this, the defendant is the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 2. 28. 선고 95다54198 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.23 2018나19001

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.04.04 2017나1863

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.29 2019나20046

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.27 2019나12298

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나83880