logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.05.06 2019나2887
불법행위로 인한 피해보상금
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

Basic Facts

On August 23, 2017, around 19:20, the Plaintiff used hot water used for apartment occupants in the office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu's apartment management office, without permission.

1) On September 1, 2017, the Defendant, the resident of the above apartment, and nine other nine persons, without permission, entered the office of the above apartment management office, which is an area where the Plaintiff was prohibited from entering to promptly and showerly using hot water. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff with the purport that the resident would have suffered property damage by stealing hot water, etc., which is the property of the resident.

(2) On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2017No. 47883, hereinafter “non-prosecution disposition”) to the effect that he/she was guilty of larceny on the grounds that he/she did not have any awareness of theft from the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office.

1) On October 12, 2018, the Defendant and nine other filed an appeal with the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office. As a result, on June 15, 2018, “the point of entering a building” was determined by the lower court, and “the point of larceny,” issued a second investigation order (2017 high-end complaint No. 14669) against the Plaintiff on the ground of misapprehending the legal doctrine and failure to investigate. 2) On October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the scope of the charge of entering a building is not determined, and it is difficult to recognize the intention of illegal acquisition against the charge of larceny.”

【Based on Recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 11-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers), and plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow