logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나7276
대여금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed F shall be co-defendant B, C, and F, of the first instance trial.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of the “I” of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party F (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) are liable to pay 10,000,000 won to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with the Co-Defendant B, C, D, and E of the first instance trial (=10,000,000 won KRW 110,000 per annum from October 10, 1994 to the day of full payment) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of full payment.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion of extinctive prescription defense is identical to the part corresponding to the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (2) The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that himself and the Appointed Party F was subject to a qualified acceptance trial on the deceased’s inheritance, and thus, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, 1) the deceased was divorced on October 8, 199 with his mother-friendlyJ of the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Defendant (Appointed Party) without any contact with the deceased on June 23, 2016; (2) the Defendant (Appointed Party) was served with the complaint of this case on June 23, 2016; and (3) the Defendant (Appointed Party) was not aware of the obligation of the deceased to the Plaintiff on acceptance of the inheritance report by the deceased on August 25, 2016.

arrow