logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.17 2016나2066637
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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. In the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable, even though comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 38 through 72 (including a serial number) that the plaintiff newly asserted and the testimony of Q Q of the party witness at the court of first instance submitted as data thereon.

Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal as follows, is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. Each real estate of this case, the fourth, fifth, fifth, fifth, and 8 pages 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance, has been cut to “the building of this case” respectively.

B. The part of the 8th to 6th of the first instance judgment is modified as follows, and the 7th to 15th of the said part shall be deleted.

“Although the Plaintiff asserted that all of the costs of the construction of the instant building were procured, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff or I contracted the construction of the instant building to the Plaintiff or I had all of the costs of the new construction on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3 (each written confirmation), 9 (Mere), 39-1 (Written Confirmation), and 52-1 (Written Confirmation) of the evidence No. 8-1, 52 (Written Confirmation).”

C. From 19th to 21th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the ", however, has not been submitted from to 21th day is as follows."

“However, even before the death of G, it does not seem that the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract on behalf of G with respect to each multi-family house of the instant building. The Plaintiff submitted the evidence Nos. 38-1 and No. 39-1 of the evidence No. 38-1 as evidence, but the said evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

D. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., from 13 to 17, is deleted.

E. The 10th 21th 21th son of the judgment of the first instance is written by the parties to “party”.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

arrow