(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.01.22 2015나3914 | 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) 인천지방법원 2016.01.22 2015나3914

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 20, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased G Apartment 12 Dong 105 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Defendant and D Real Estate Office E, an employee of D Real Estate Office, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the instant apartment on August 25, 2004 under the name of H, according to the title trust agreement with H (if the Plaintiff’s wife is referred to as “H husband and wife,” hereinafter “H husband and wife”).

B. Since the announcement of the plan for the relocation of the Songdo New City, the plaintiff was announced to sell the apartment of this case to J around February 8, 2006 due to a rapid increase in the market price of the apartment of this case. The plaintiff left the plaintiff as the plaintiff would purchase the apartment of this case, and as the plaintiff would cancel the sales contract with J, he filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff who tried to occupy the apartment of this case with the intention to pay the money of this case without paying the money of this case.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, in collusion with H couple, gave false testimony in the criminal case instituted by the Plaintiff, thereby causing mental and economic damage to the Plaintiff to KRW 100 million by having the Plaintiff criminal punishment.

Therefore, the defendant should first pay 10,000,000 won and damages for delay as part of it to the plaintiff.

2. We examine the judgment. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant conspired with the H husband and wife that the Plaintiff gave false testimony in the criminal case against which the prosecution was instituted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3, and 7 of the evidence Nos. 5-2, and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff is entitled to forge and use the performance angle and statement in the name of I and H concerning the purchase fund of the apartment of this case, and against the fact that I and H were free from suspicion.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.07.03 2017가단530096

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.10 2015가단132776

-인천지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가단9501

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.08 2016고정3017

-부산지방법원 2018.01.10 2017나43241