logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2015.08.20 2014나3767
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

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 50 or Gap evidence No. 60-2, which is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion because the plaintiff was submitted to the court for the first time, and the plaintiff's assertion of addition or supplement was added to the court for the first time, and the reasons for the judgment are as stated in the judgment of the court for the first time, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant as to each of the real estate in this case as to the purport of the plaintiff's assertion is not effective pursuant to the Real Estate Real Name Act, the juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, the unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, the declaration of intention under Article 107 of the Civil Act, the right to return to the voluntary representative under Article 120 of the Civil Act, the right to return to the voluntary representative under Article 121 of the Civil Act, the right to return to the legal representative and the responsibility thereof under Article 122 of the Civil Act, the right to return to the legal representative under Article 123 of the Civil Act, the authority of the subagent under Article 124 of the Civil Act, the acting representative beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, the partial invalidation of juristic act under Article 137 of the Civil Act, the ratification of a juristic act under Article 139 of the Civil Act, the prohibition of infringement of conditional rights under Article 151 of the Civil Act, the cancellation of unjust enrichment.

The defendant violates Article 22 of the Registration of Real Estate Act in the course of completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each real estate of this case, and the Criminal Act, such as forging a sales contract (Evidence A8) with respect to each real estate of this case and deceiving a registered public official

arrow