logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.07.17 2014나14304
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of the following Paragraph 2 among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried or added;

(a) Following the fifth and sixth part of the judgment of the first instance court, “Health Team” was added to “The foregoing evidence and evidence Nos. 4 and 9, and the testimony of the witness E at the trial of the first instance,” and “the fact that there was a “the fact that there was a past” was not sufficient to recognize, and otherwise, it was added to “the fact that there was a different”.

(b)No. 6 of the first instance court ruling add “B evidence 11-1, 2” to “(1, 4-1, 4-2)” following the first instance court ruling, and add “the testimony of witnesses E and the first instance court” to “the results of fact-finding,” following the first instance judgment.

C. The statement of E containing the purport that “C” was wholly aware of the fact that “C had not explained at the time when it solicits the Plaintiff to purchase the Kaol loan in the presence of the Plaintiff, E, Defendant Union president, senior managing director, and managing director, etc.” in Part 7 through Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, shall be recorded as a witness of the trial and shall be filled by “C” while E was present as a witness of the trial and sold agrochemicals that should not be sold by Defendant Union president, senior managing director, and managing director, etc. at the same place. There is no mentioning whether or not to explain the explanation, and C did not explain the Plaintiff as to whether or not to explain the explanation.” In light of the purport that “C did not know about whether or not it has explained the Plaintiff,” it is impossible to believe this as it is.

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 5" shall be changed to "No. 5 and No. 6".

(e) Chapter 7, Chapter 19, of the first instance court ruling, is the area with severe damage in the area where the Plaintiff spreads carin.

arrow