logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2019.01.10 2018가합1221
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as the creditor against the Plaintiff, received a collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the Plaintiff, as the creditor against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff received the same amount until it reaches KRW 700,00,000 out of the claim for public works (sale price) upon the acquisition of the notarial deed No. 6666, 201, which expressed the intent to accept compulsory execution, of the notarial deed No. 2017, G, H land, and each of the above land and each of the above land buildings, from the notarial deed No. 2017, Oct. 20, 2017, the Defendant Head-General received the original copy of the instant seizure and collection order around October 20, 2017.

Therefore, Defendant C and Defendant C, who are in charge of the duty of compensation payment, violated their official duties on October 24, 2017, and had Defendant Head-Gun pay KRW 477,098,000 out of the instant claim to D.

The Plaintiff suffered mental loss equivalent to KRW 477,098,00,000, which was paid to Defendant C due to the above acts by Defendant B and C, and the amount equivalent to KRW 50,000,00.

Thus, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act as a party to the above tort, Defendant B and C are local governments to which Defendant B and C who committed a tort in the course of performing their duties belong, and they are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of damages of KRW 527,098,000, and damages for delay thereof pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

B. The fact that Defendant Head of the Defendants paid KRW 477,098,000 to D is recognized.

However, this is the repayment of the instant claims, other than the instant claims seized according to the instant seizure and collection order.

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant Head of the Military Service was prohibited from disposing of the instant seizure and collection order and from paying the same.

arrow