(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.22 2014나2018542

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 2015.01.22 2014나2018542

예금

Text

1. The part concerning the Republic of Korea of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's objection to the Republic of Korea.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 14th to the end of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the following parts:

Accordingly, the first instance court's co-defendant B (hereinafter "trustee B") on November 23, 2010 succeeded to the original development (the original development was declared bankrupt on November 23, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Hahap100) cannot claim the instant pledge against the Plaintiff due to the second commitment, and the appellate court appealed against the instant assignment order as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ra1199. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on February 22, 2013 on the ground that the instant deposit claim in the account does not constitute a security that the instant case did not claim against the Plaintiff under the second commitment.

Accordingly, the administrator B re-appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Ma364, but on April 12, 2013, the reappeal was dismissed.

In the 7th two cases, the term “depositors” shall be read as “the Plaintiff and the Defendants as the Plaintiff and the Defendants.”

The following shall be added between the 7th parallel and the 6th parallel:

n. On December 5, 2013, when the instant lawsuit was pending, Defendant Republic of Korea received full payment of the tax in arrears related to the seizure of the instant deposit claim from administrator B, and accordingly released the said seizure.

In addition, around December 2014, Defendant Republic of Korea submitted a written confirmation to the deposit officer of the Seoul Central District Court that “the deposit of this case is not the status of the deposit recipient, no right to the deposit of this case exists, and no right is claimed.”

Note 1, 2, and 7 are added to the 6th line [based grounds for recognition].

2. Defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015. 01. 22. 선고 2014나2018542 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2020.09.16 2019나29602

-서울고등법원 2016.03.11 2015나2042702

-대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2018나21860

-제주지방법원 2021.02.02 2020나10671