(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.24 2017나103748

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) 대전지방법원 2018.08.24 2017나103748

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows:

Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointor H, and I are joint, 1.0

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the “inward side” of No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance is used as “on the left side”. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for damages is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The extent of compensation for damages is determined as follows, taking into account the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the tort of this case, the duration and frequency of the tort of this case, the types and patterns of the tort of this case, the degree of damage inflicted upon the plaintiff and the Appointed, the age and relationship between the Appointed and the Appointed, the circumstances after the tort of this case, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case.

B) The portion that is not recognized as KRW 1,500,000 (Plaintiff 2,00,000 KRW 7,000,000) for Defendant C, D, and E (Plaintiff 500,000 KRW 1,500,000) due to the instant tort committed by the Appointor H, and the Plaintiff is working at work after the Plaintiff rejected the Appointor J due to the instant tort by the Appointor’s refusal to attend school.

As such, there were many cases where the workplace was dismissed, and for the purpose of grasping the truth of the tort of this case, the employer forced the recommendation company to be absent without permission due to frequent absence from the workplace, and eventually retired from the workplace, and the Defendants, Ha, and I should pay KRW 35,00,000 for the damages incurred therefrom.

However, it is difficult to deem that there is a proximate causal relation with the designated party H’s tort of this case, and such damage constitutes special damage.

As to such damages.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.01.17 2017나310034

-대법원 2016.06.23 2014다49234

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.05.24 2015가단101852

-대법원 1987. 9. 8. 선고 86다카816 판결

-인천지방법원 2020.01.10 2019나55494