(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.11.01 2018나11650

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) 전주지방법원 2019.11.01 2018나11650

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The summary of the cause of the claim is the director of the legal office C.

On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was detained on the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and continued the appellate trial (hereinafter “instant trial”), and the Plaintiff was unable to release him as a suspended sentence or a fine, because he was a repeated offense.

Nevertheless, on February 4, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff and its branch members, to be released from a suspended sentence or a fine, had the Plaintiff enter into an agreement by which the Plaintiff’s friendships (hereinafter “instant agreement”) as a defense counsel at the above appellate trial and pay KRW 5,500,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff spend KRW 5,50,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund 5.5 million won and damages for delay paid to the plaintiff according to the agreement of this case.

2. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and Eul evidence No. 1, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) concluded the agreement of this case with the attorney-at-law to entrust the plaintiff's criminal defense to Eul in the judgment of this case while the plaintiff was under detention, and paid 5.5 million won to the plaintiff's seat; and (b) E and F, etc. at the time of the conclusion of the agreement of this case, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement of this case, consulted with the defendant as to the prospect of the judgment of this case and the contents of the agreement of this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the person who received the retainer as a party to the instant agreement is a lawyer C, and the defendant cannot be deemed a party to the instant agreement, and thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant, the secretary C, is a party to the rights and obligations under the instant agreement cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단59076

-부산지방법원 2015.07.14 2014나13881

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.26 2017재나58

-대법원 2013. 4. 26. 선고 2013다2245 판결

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.11.19 2015가단791