(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.25 2017나2064379

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 2019.04.25 2017나2064379

부당이득금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (as stated in the part on the grounds of appeal No. 9 to No. 7 of the first instance judgment) is the same as that of the relevant part on the grounds of the first instance judgment (as stated in the part on the grounds of appeal No. 9 to No. 7 of the second instance judgment), and thus

Part 2, the "DD Authority" in Sections 17 through 18 shall be added to "D Authority (the trade name after the change shall be referred to as "K Authority" or "D Authority" without distinction.

Part 5, "No. 26, 2012" in Part 19 shall be applied "No. 5, 2012".

Part 6 of the 7th page "The contract amount of this case 1,705,100,000" shall be "the contract amount of this case 1,706,100,000 won which the plaintiff and the defendant agreed with the settlement amount of 1,680,80,000 won."

Part 7, "by April 29, 2015" in Part 8 shall be applied "by April 30, 2015".

Part VII "Interest 12,98,399" was added to "interest 12,98,399" and "interest 12,98,399, and under Won."

Part 7 18 "A 1 through 5, 14 through 19, 22" shall be written with "A 1 through 5, 11, 14 through 19, 22".

The grounds for the court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion related to the claim, such as damages incurred by the failure to use part of material costs of the C-Lighting Equipment, are as follows. Except for the use of "H" in Section 5 of the judgment of the first instance as "G", the title of the first instance judgment from Sections 8 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance.

2.(a)

Plaintiff’s assertion

Inasmuch as the description is the same as the description, it is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In the damages claim due to nonperformance of judgment, first of all, whether the Defendant was contractually obligated to use the amount equivalent to the amount that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff as the material cost of the C’s lighting machine (including the subsidies of KRW 484,385,531) as the material cost of the C’s lighting machine.

The evidence mentioned above, and DD on January 24, 2019.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.05.02 2018나2044204

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.14 2017나4675

-서울고등법원 2019.08.22 2018나2001016

-서울고등법원 2019.12.19 2017나37333

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.10.22 2020나11290