(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.07.02 2020나2007611

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 2020.07.02 2020나2007611

투자금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant asserts that the judgment on the previous defense of the merits is contrary to the special agreement on the lawsuit, since C and the defendant agreed to bring an action through the contract of this case.

Defendant and C, the instant contract No. 9-b.

Paragraph (1) provides that “When the above establishment is not established or non-performance is made, an agricultural partnership (agricultural corporation) shall assume the responsibility and shall not raise any rights, inherent authority, civil or criminal objection, and shall issue a confirmation certificate, respectively. When the contents of the above agreement are established, all civil or criminal cases shall be withdrawn.”

However, C and the defendant 9-B above.

separate from the subsection 9-C.

In light of the fact that the defendant has a provision that "if the defendant does not provide ownership transfer documents, he will accept compensation for damages", the special agreement alleged by the defendant merely appears to the purport that "no objection is raised to the matters provided for in paragraph (8) of the contract of this case (the contents of the contract of this case), and no longer dispute is raised against the civil and criminal cases that were pending at the time of conclusion of the contract of this case" and Article 9-3 of the contract of this case.

It does not seem to be the purpose of prohibiting the claim for damages caused by the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation to provide the ownership transfer documents.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is that the court has the obligation to pay the defendant's argument in Section 5 of Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance from Part 8 to Part 4 of Part 8 of the defendant's argument. The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance ("2. Judgment on the cause of the claim") except for the case where the defendant's argument in Part 5 to

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.10.16 2018나2060862

-서울고등법원 2017.11.17 2017나2021792

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.05.30 2017나1665

-서울고등법원 2019.02.15 2018나2055082

-대전지방법원 2018.09.05 2017나108149