logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
red_flag_2
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2015나34103 판결
[손해배상][미간행]
Plaintiff, Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Republic of Korea and one other

Conclusion of Pleadings

January 21, 2016

The first instance judgment

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Da40414 Decided July 10, 2015

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly with the Songpa Agricultural Cooperative shall pay the Plaintiff 60 million won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all of the claims against the Defendants corresponding to the above revocation part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a member should explain the instant case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Since Defendant Republic of Korea is likely to be liable for damages for MFC later, if the Plaintiff, who is an intermediate buyer, is liable for double damages if he is liable for damages even to the Plaintiff who is an intermediate buyer, Defendant 2 (Seoul: Nonparty 4) asserts that the liability is excessively expanded and unfair. Defendant 2 (Seoul: Nonparty 4) merely received the bid of the instant building according to the appraisal price determined erroneously by the Plaintiff at the auction procedure of this case, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea’s liability is based on the negligence of Defendant Republic of Korea’s registry official. Thus, Defendant 2

B. The plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be rejected solely for such reasons, and the negligence of the public official belonging to the defendant Republic of Korea does not affect the defendant 2's warranty liability. Thus, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-ho (Presiding Judge)

arrow