logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.11.07 2019나10194
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance while appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed justifiable even if the evidence and the purport of the whole argument presented in the court of first instance were neglected.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. The addition;

A. In general, a mandatary must perform his/her duty of care as a good manager according to the nature of the mandate. In particular, an attorney-at-law to whom the attorney-at-law is delegated a legal representative has the duty to protect the client’s rights in good faith based on his/her professional legal knowledge and experience in performing the delegated affairs. However, specific scope of delegated affairs is determined by the terms of delegation contract between the attorney and the client, and it cannot be said that the attorney-at-law has a general duty to take all necessary measures to protect the client’s property, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9479, Nov. 22, 2002). Even in a case where an attorney-at-law improperly loses a litigation case delegated to him/her, it is recognized that he/she did not exercise ordinary attention in the performance of the litigation in light of the average attorney-at-law, and, in a case where an attorney-at-law has exercised ordinary attention, he/she is liable to compensate for property damage suffered by the client due to the fact that proximate causal relation exists between the attorney's fault in the performance of the litigation and property damage caused by the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da9918 Decided September 10, 2015). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is a health room, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

arrow