(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나1104 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나1104

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. We examine whether the appeal of this case is lawful ex officio.

An appeal may only be lodged against a judgment rendered by himself/herself, and whether the judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant shall be determined as at the time of the filing of the appeal, based on the standard of the text of the judgment. Therefore, an appeal against the judgment that won the entire winning of the case is unlawful as

(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay KRW 5,00,000 and KRW 32,100 per annum from September 11, 2014 to the date of full payment, and the Defendant to pay KRW 30,000 per annum from September 11, 2014 to the date of full payment. However, at the second date of pleading of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 30 per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment, and it is recognized that the said claim was fully accepted in the first instance trial.

Therefore, it is obvious that the plaintiff won the whole lawsuit against the defendant, and the appeal of this case filed against it is unlawful as there is no benefit from appeal.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the resumption of the pleading was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff received interest payment from September 11, 2014 to 30% per annum. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the resumption of the pleading was modified as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the resumption of the pleading was entirely winning the suit. 2. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the resumption of the pleading to submit favorable evidence to the Plaintiff, but as seen earlier, the existence of the claim for interest payment does not affect the conclusion that the instant appeal is unlawful.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 7. 13. 선고 2007다20235 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.11.29 2016나9114

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.01 2016나51575

-광주지방법원 2019.04.25 2018나3348

-부산지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나62454

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.16 2020나20974