(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.13 2019나19909

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 2019.11.13 2019나19909

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to adding "2. Additional determination" to "the following," and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. In the first instance court for further determination, the Plaintiff sought the payment of consolation money of KRW 10,00,000, but the Plaintiff did not seek consolation money in the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as of May 29, 2018, and the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as of January 12, 2019, respectively.

Nevertheless, the first instance court ordered the defendant to pay consolation money of KRW 5,000,000 and damages for delay to the plaintiff, so there is an error of violating the disposition right.

However, only the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff added a preliminary claim for the payment of consolation money of KRW 20,000,000 to the court of first instance where the primary claim is not accepted in whole or in part.

(No. 11 of the preparatory brief No. 14 of October 14, 2019). In full view of the content and result of the case of the health team, the preceding first and second instances, the degree of breach of the Defendant’s duty of care, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc., the court of first instance cannot recognize the occurrence of additional mental damage, other than KRW 5,00,000, which is the amount recognized as consolation money,

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by citing consolation money not claimed by the plaintiff in violation of the disposition right, but the plaintiff cannot change the judgment of the court of first instance to the plaintiff, who is the appellant, under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change in the case where only the plaintiff filed an appeal. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed as it is

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.13 2020나53578

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.07.19 2015가단14153

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2021.04.29 2021나10756

-부산지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나52006

-서울고등법원 2016.02.18 2013나27338