(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2016나2082127

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 2017.08.17 2016나2082127

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's conjunctive defendant C shall be dismissed's appeal.

2. The A.I. Credit Union around the judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's appeal as to the legitimacy of the appeal against the defendant C is seeking a change of revocation in favor of his judgment unfavorable to himself, and therefore the decision of winning the appeal is not permitted, and the decision is disadvantageous to the appellant, in principle, shall be judged in accordance with the main text of the judgment. Since the plaintiff won all of the main defendant A Credit Union and B in the first instance court of this case, there is no benefit of appeal as the winning party in full.

The plaintiff asserts in the appellate court that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the main defendants in preparation for a case where the appellate court lost against the main defendants. However, in the preliminary selective co-litigation, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the main defendants, A Credit Union and B, who are the main defendants, and one of the co-litigants who lost in order to uniformly resolve the dispute relationship between the co-litigants that are not legally compatible, shall be prevented from becoming final and conclusive and shall be transferred to the higher court, and the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is not applicable to the conjunctive defendant C. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is also subject to the appellate court's judgment, and if the confirmation of the conjunctive claim is prevented and the decision of dismissal of the claim against the main defendant is to be declared differently from the judgment of the court of first instance as a result of the appellate court's examination, the propriety of the claim against the conjunctive defendant

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the ancillary Defendant C is unlawful.

2. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the basic facts are stated by the first instance court's order of the fourth 9th decision of the first instance.

B. The phrase “as referred to in paragraph (2)” is as follows: “In Mancheon District Court No. 97008, Aug. 24, 2015; and the phrase “Defendant 1” in Section 14.

A. As stated in paragraph 2, “In Incheon District Court” received on August 24, 2015.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.07.06 2016나15280

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.01 2017나26170

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.16 2020나20974

-수원지방법원 2012.11.15 2012나16459

-서울고등법원 2017.04.06 2015나28311