(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.10.27 2016나51600

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.10.27 2016나51600

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the plaintiff used 4-10 to 17-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, with respect to the "cost of remuneration within the scope of liability for damages," which is the part for which the plaintiff asserts again in the court of first instance, as the part against the plaintiff and the defendant is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance

In other words, in full view of the testimony by the witness C of the first instance court, the appraisal result by the appraiser C of the first instance court, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the first instance court as to the appraiser C of the first instance court, the repair costs for the cracks, etc. generated from the house of this case are acknowledged as having 2,269,376 won, 215,038 won, and 237,295 won, general management costs and profits, value added tax, and 1,738,291 won, including 1,738,291 won, and 460,000 won in total, and 4,460 won in the case of the plaintiff's property damage caused by the blasting of this case. The plaintiff asserts that the repair costs for the cracks, etc. incurred by the blasting of this case, were 3,00,000 won, 4.266,000 won, 4,000 won, 813,000 won,00

In addition, the plaintiff's ordinary outer wall finishing of the building is to carry out a painted cement on the right side, while the finishing of the building outer wall of this case is implemented by the draba method, and the finishing of the building outer wall of this case is not attached to the outer wall by the drabac method, and is cut off a stike cement without attaching a stikee, so it is cut off with the outer wall, so there is no proper repair method other than the method of cutting back a stike cement, and the outer wall color is to be cut back in the case of the construction of a mashing as it is without being cut.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2017.03.08 2015가단31348

-수원지방법원 2017.07.20 2015가단113954

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.25 2015가단24952

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.03.17 2014가단4376

-울산지방법원 2018.12.18 2017가단62909