logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.10.02 2014나911
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed as follows: the Defendant, as a financial institution, seems to have been well aware of the fact that the Defendant could freely withdraw the application for auction prior to the bid offer in the auction procedure because it is a creditor who is an individual, as a financial institution, and the Defendant would have been able to freely withdraw the application for auction; the Defendant’s receiving total amount of the claim against the Plaintiff was a bid offer on April 22, 2010; and the Defendant was deemed to have had time to withdraw the application for auction on May 17, 2010; and the Defendant is also disputing the amount of the claim for damages against the Plaintiff and did not dispute the Defendant’s liability for damages themselves. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant, prior to the second auction bidding, was paid a total amount of claim against the Plaintiff on April 22, 2010, and thus, the Defendant did not withdraw the application for auction and did not cause damages to each of the instant real estate, thereby making the Plaintiff lose its obligation to compensate each of the instant real estate.

B. However, the limitation of liability does not necessarily preclude the Defendant, a creditor, from withdrawing an application for auction, even as the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, from selling each of the real estate of this case, by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant actively demanded withdrawal of the application for second auction, or further repayment of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and suspending the sale procedure upon receiving a decision of suspension of execution.

arrow