(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나56166

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) 수원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나56166

용역비

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this part of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the Plaintiff’s assertion are as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for addition or dismissal as follows. As such, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second sentence of the judgment of the first instance is "B" of September 7, 2007 and the second sentence is "B" of September 17, 2007.

At the end of the second 16th judgment of the first instance, "However, the amount of consulting service costs in the agreement of this case has been left public space."

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be "2. A shall pay the consulting service cost to B at the time of conclusion of the above real estate sales contract."

In the first head of the third third party judgment of the first instance, “The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 170,000,000 at the consulting service cost under the agreement of this case,” shall be added.

2. We examine the judgment on the primary claim. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants agreed to pay 170,000,000 won as consulting service costs under the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, the Defendants filed a complaint against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife under suspicion of the alteration of the private document and the uttering of the altered private document regarding the instant agreement, etc. The Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (J) voluntarily stated “170,000,000” on July 23, 2019 on the front side of the service cost column of the instant agreement, and then, on December 2017, 2017, the Plaintiff attempted to arbitrarily provide consulting fees to the Defendants’ co-ownership share agreement and to acquire them as 170,000,000,000,0000 won in the instant agreement by submitting the altered private document to the court as evidence and to have lost its property profits as evidence.

"A public prosecution can be recognized for facts constituting an offense."

The Defendants were the Defendants of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2020.08.13 2020누10652

-대구지방법원 2019.11.20 2019나2849

-수원고등법원 2020.11.19 2019나21312

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.05 2019나34373

-대구지방법원 2019.11.27 2019나312744