logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.08.18 2016나4736
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 10,053.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff planted 14,000 instant seedlings (hereinafter “instant seedlings”) on a vinyl house (hereinafter “instant vinyl”).

B. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant’s staff-in-charge B sold to the Plaintiff 500 malle 2 disease (hereinafter “instant draft”).

C. After that, 7,00 of the seedlings of this case was dead. D.

The first agents of this case are non-opportunal agents that, if chemicals contact with the leafs of a plant, to kill the relevant plant.

(i) [i.e., representing the first effect without regard to the species of plants] / [based grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence 3; Eul evidence 1 to 4; Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 evidence (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff 1) caused the plaintiff Eul to develop a tree tree tree nursery in the instant vinyl, so that he purchased the instant portrait. The plaintiff 2 did not know that the Plaintiff could kill seedlings if he had contacted the tree nursery, and then spread the instant portrait to the instant vinyl without knowing that he could kill the tree. The plaintiff 2 was responsible for compensating the plaintiff 19,600,000 won of the damages suffered by the plaintiff, since the 7,000 share of the tree tree planted in the instant vinyl, due to the negligence in the above B, died in the instant vinyl, and the defendant 2 did not listen to the explanation from the plaintiff that the tree tree tree nursery was planted in the instant vinyl for a long time, and the plaintiff 2 was engaged in agriculture for a long time and used the instant portrait, and did not know the efficacy of the instant portrait.

As such, as the negligence of B is not recognized, the defendant's employer liability is not recognized as the premise of B's negligence.

B. Determination 1.

arrow