(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.04.19 2018재나61

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) 전주지방법원 2019.04.19 2018재나61

대여금

Text

1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

Reasons

1.The following facts shall be apparent or significant to the court in the record, in which the protocol subject to quasi-examination has become final:

The Plaintiff asserted that the net C lent 4 million won to the interest rate of 49% per annum, and filed a lawsuit at the first instance court on January 2, 2017 against the Defendant, the heir of the net C, claiming 4 million won and damages for delay.

On April 20, 2017, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4 million won and damages for delay within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C."

B. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed the first instance judgment, and the appellate court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 4 million and its delay damages.”

On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the said decision, and thereafter, on the date of the fourth pleading with the Defendant, “the Defendant shall pay 5.5 million won to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2018. If the Defendant fails to pay the said amount by the payment date, a settlement was made with the content that “in addition to the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the date of payment to the day of full payment, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount by adding the amount to the amount calculated at the rate of 15

The above protocol was served on the Plaintiff on March 26, 2018.

2. Judgment on the grounds for quasi-examination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is that the Defendant incurred loss to the Plaintiff by deceiving the deceased’s death insurance proceeds, which are inherited property, without intentionally entering them in the list of property, on the ground that it constitutes “when the false statement by the witness witness interpreter or the false statement by the party or legal representative by the party examination or by the party examination, becomes evidence of the judgment.” Therefore, there exists a ground for retrial in the quasi-examination protocol under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제7호

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2021.04.28 2020재나144

-부산지방법원 2019.10.04 2019재나93

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.23 2017재가단52

-서울고등법원 2020.10.14 2019재나517

-광주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015재머45