(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나33662

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나33662

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

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 17, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on March 17, 2017 against the owner of multi-household housing located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant loan”) seeking removal, etc. of the structures installed on the rooftop of the instant loan as Seoul Northern District Court 2017Gaso37091.

B. On July 9, 2017, at around 12:05, the Defendant, along with the occupants of the instant loan, found the Plaintiff at the rooftop room in which the Plaintiff resided, and in the process, E destroyed the fire that was set up in front of the rooftop entrance.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On July 9, 2017, at around 12:05, the Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, promulgated the Plaintiff by exercising multiple power, as follows: (a) the four occupants of the instant loan, including E, and (b) the Plaintiff was put in the rooftop bank of the instant loan, and took a bath and intimidation; and (c) E was destroyed by a lock door, lock locking device, and dysium.

Since the plaintiff suffered mental shock due to the above joint tort by the defendant et al., the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 2,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. In the above-mentioned basic facts, the Defendant destroyed the Plaintiff’s fertility jointly with E solely on the basis of the facts or the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4.

It is insufficient to recognize that the entrance and locking system of the rooftop bank was destroyed by the combination with four occupants of the instant loan, such as E, and that the Plaintiff made a bath and intimidation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가단5013900

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.05 2015나6878

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.25 2017나81993

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018가합54

-서울서부지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단25279