(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.05.21 2019나2027732 (1)

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 2020.05.21 2019나2027732 (1)

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant C.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows, except where the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was changed from Company B to Company AF (hereinafter “Defendant AF”) on December 17, 2019 on the ground of the judgment of the first instance, on the ground that the part corresponding to the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant AF

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the existence of a cause attributable to (B) 13 pages 13 of the judgment below, the following parts were applied. (B) Even if Defendant AF’s sale of the instant site where contaminated soil, waste, etc. were buried to the Plaintiff as an incomplete performance under a sales contract, it constitutes an incomplete performance, and thus, in order to compensate Defendant AF for damages therefrom, there must be a cause attributable to Defendant AF’s intentional act or negligence in the incomplete performance, etc., and the burden of proving that there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1864, Mar. 26, 1985; 2 and 3, taking into account the following circumstances, Defendant AF did not know the existence of a polluted soil and waste in the instant ground at the time of entering into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to deem that Defendant AF was negligent in not knowing such fact.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① D Underground Pollution Land, among the instant land, is the instant case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.15 2017나87854

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.19 2017나35242

-서울중앙지방법원 2008. 9. 3. 선고 2006가합7988 판결

-서울고등법원 2019.03.27 2018나2039196

-서울고등법원 2019.08.22 2018나2001016