logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.04.18 2017나307885
조합원분담금 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is 3.B.

2) Except in cases where a clause (b) is used as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such clause is quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the term of validity due to the impossibility of additional recruitment by union members or general buyers is not due to the Plaintiff’s failure to recruit additional union members after August 10, 2015. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s failure to recruit additional union members after August 10, 2015 should be deemed to have come due to the impossibility of replacing additional union members or general buyers. In a case where the time when the existence of uncertain facts occurs, not only the time when such fact occurs but also when the occurrence of such fact becomes impossible, the period for performance should be deemed to have come due. Here, in determining whether the occurrence of uncertain facts, which are the cause of uncertainty, becomes impossible, a specific determination should take into account the intention of the parties, the type and characteristics of the fact due to the impossibility, and the degree of the expiration of the time period, as well as the degree of the time when the occurrence of uncertain facts becomes impossible. In light of the overall social situation, the Plaintiff’s decision on whether the impossibility is impossible according to social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7577).

The following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged to show the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 19 and Eul evidence Nos. 23 through 27, i.e., the project of this case as a project exceeding 800 members, in light of its scale, the number of its members, the amount of its business funds, etc.

arrow