(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.21 2017나2056842

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) 서울고등법원 2018.02.21 2017나2056842

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or deletion as follows. Thus, it shall accept it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or deleted parts] The fifth and sixth pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

The sixth week of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

Part VII of the Decision of the first instance shall include the following:

Even if there is no causal link between Defendant D and E’s act and the deceased’s death, Defendant D and E assaulted the Deceased, and Defendant D and E assaulted the Deceased with Defendant E due to negligence in the direction of appointment and supervision of Defendant D, who is an employee, in relation to the performance of Defendant’s new consultation, and thus, the Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages caused by Defendant D and E’s assault against the Defendants.

Part 5 of the Decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

Meanwhile, Defendant D and E assaulted the Deceased jointly on January 14, 2015, as seen above.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that defendant D and Eul deposited KRW 5,00,000 for the plaintiffs during the relevant criminal case. In light of the degree of violence as seen above, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and the deceased's heir, suffered property or mental damage exceeding the above deposit money. Thus, the above deposit is compensated for damages caused by violence.

In addition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the act of assault by the defendant D is related to the execution of the defendant's new consultation affairs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, as well as that there was a compensation for the damage caused by the assault due to the deposit by the defendant D and E.

Therefore, the plaintiffs.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나39045

-대전지방법원 2020.11.20 2020나101544

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.08.23 2018나10947

-서울남부지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나63922

-서울고등법원 2017.11.24 2017나2037810