logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2018.11.30 2018나22137
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(However, the part on Defendant B, except for the part on Defendant B, shall be determined by the court of first instance as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in this court.

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 as to the plaintiff's assertion against three persons, including the defendant CC farming association. The plaintiff asserted that this court had re-appellanted three persons, including the defendant C farming association corporation, as follows. Three persons, including the defendant C farming association corporation, knew or sufficiently known that B embezzled and sold the plaintiff's rice at the time of purchasing rice from B. Nevertheless, they aiding and abetting the plaintiff's embezzlement by purchasing rice owned by B, which constitutes a joint tort due to the plaintiff's intentional or negligence. Therefore, three persons, including the defendant C farming association corporation, etc., are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages (the amount equivalent to the price of grain purchased from B) caused by such joint tort (the amount equivalent to the price of grain purchased from B. 2). 2) The defendant C farming association corporation et al. failed to fully explain the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance cited prior to the judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's act of embezzlement and aiding and abetting the plaintiff's testimony in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented.

The plaintiff's claim based on this premise shall not be accepted without further review.

① The Plaintiff’s service regulations and the effect that no employee is engaged in any other occupation or is engaged in any business in substantial competition with the agricultural cooperative.

arrow