logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가단5047935
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to enter the art university, the Plaintiff is a Dental Institute located in the Seongbuk-gu branch of the Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) operated by the Defendants from around 2014 for admission to the art university.

(2) At the time of entrance in 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the first screening of the Red- pursuant Video Design Department at the request of the Defendants, and passed the first screening. For the second screening, the Plaintiff submitted the art activity report required by the said university until January 17, 2017.

3) When the Plaintiff prepares a draft of the art activity report and sent it to the Plaintiff, the Defendants agreed with the Plaintiff on the basis of the review of the draft, and the delegation contract under Article 680 of the Civil Act was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. However, since the art activity report takes considerable time to enter, the Defendants are obligated to prepare it in advance and make the Plaintiff enter the art activity report without any delay before the completion of the art activity report, the Defendants provided the Plaintiff with an art activity report added to the time before the completion of the art activity report, and the Plaintiff failed to enter the art activity report within the time of entry. Accordingly, the Defendants’ act constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act or nonperformance of the delegation contract.

Therefore, the defendants should compensate the plaintiff for consolation money of 40 million won as damages caused by default or tort.

2. On December 2016, there is no dispute between the parties concerned that Defendant C gave advice on the direction for the Plaintiff to prepare a report on art activities, etc. Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties concerned that the Defendants assisted the Plaintiff by modifying or modifying the draft report on art activities sent by the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff’s e-mail, etc.

However, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6, 8.

arrow