logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나3036
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

Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The grounds for judgment of this court shall be the same as the part of the judgment of the first instance; and

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act): Provided, That this shall not apply as follows:

The "F" that takes the second step above the third hand of the judgment of the court of first instance as "C".

B. The following contents are added to the judgment of the first instance court 4th to the effect that the Plaintiff had entered into the contract, which would be five to sixth. Even if a positive deception is not recognized with respect to family affairs C, C did not notify the Plaintiff of the name of the instant insignia center business operator, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff passively.

In addition, C had the intent to change the party to the contract of this case when the name of the business operator becomes the denied defendant.

The employer shall be liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff, the obligee due to the nonperformance of the obligation by the employee, as the employer, who is the employer, shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages on the basis of the employer’s liability.

C. The following shall be added from the fourth lower judgment of the first instance to the following:

In addition, if it is evident that the other party would not have known of the fact in light of the empirical rule of general transactions, the legal obligation to notify the other party of the fact is acknowledged in light of the good faith when it is evident that the other party would not have known of the fact.

In the case of this case, there is a lack of evidence of the circumstance that there is a duty of disclosure to notify the name of the business operator to C.

Next, there is no evidence to acknowledge the assertion that C promised to change the name of the instant contract, and rather, as seen earlier.

arrow