logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.04.29 2015나15061
임금
Text

1. The appeal against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim that has been changed to an exchange at the trial.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the principal lawsuit of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following parts of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the fourth six pages of the judgment of the first instance. “There is a duty to pay”:

As to “A” in the first instance, if the instant automobile was owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company paid KRW 572,373, and KRW 727,910 to the Plaintiff on April 16, 2013, the Defendant Company should deduct the said money from the wages in arrears. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 3, 8, 10, 13, and 14, the Defendant can be found to have paid the Plaintiff the money necessary for the purchase of the instant automobile with the monthly payment of retirement pay or advance payment of retirement pay to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. Since the Defendant trusted the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff owned ownership in the internal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff has the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the termination of the title trust agreement with respect to the instant automobile and sought the delivery of the said automobile.

B. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant held the title trust of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal as to the principal lawsuit shall be dismissed.

arrow