(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.04.23 2018나26321

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) 울산지방법원 2020.04.23 2018나26321

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a supplementary judgment as to the part on which the plaintiff asserted as the ground of appeal against Defendant C as to the part on which the plaintiff raised as the ground of appeal against Defendant C, and thus, it is citing

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant C

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that Defendant C lent KRW 24 million to the Deceased for a long time before the Deceased’s death, and that C received reimbursement of KRW 3 million among them and held a claim for loans of KRW 21 million against the Deceased. However, Defendant C did not submit objective data, such as financial data.

In this court’s personal examination, Defendant C lent the passbook and seal of the N association account in his name to the deceased, and thereafter asserted that he did not use the account. Defendant C terminated the account by receiving more than KRW 100 million money from the deceased from April 2, 2012 to April 15, 2013. Under the financial real name system, even if the deceased had the passbook and seal of Defendant C, the termination of the account cannot be said to be possible. In light of these circumstances, rather than Defendant C’s claim against the deceased, it should be deemed that the deceased had a claim against Defendant C.

B. The interpretation of a declaration of intention is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the act of indicating it, and where the parties to the contract have written the contents of any contract in writing, which is a disposal document, it shall not be cited in the phrase used in the document, but shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating it according to the contents of the written document, regardless of the party’s internal intent. In this case, the objective meaning

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.10.01 2012가단30391

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.05.29 2017가단4693

-대법원 2015.03.12 2013다79740

-춘천지방법원 2017.06.07 2016가단6340

-부산지방법원 2014.02.11 2012가단223805