logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.08.28 2014나2052061
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "5,40,00 won" in the 6th judgment of the court of first instance 6, "5,40,00 won" in the 6th judgment, "565,40,00 won" in the 6th judgment of the court of first instance 11, " witness B and C" in the 7th judgment " witness B and " witness C of the court of first instance" in the 8th judgment 19,20, and " witness C" in the 10th judgment of the court of first instance 8th judgment; " witness B" in the 4th judgment as " witness B of the court of first instance" in the 8th judgment of the court of first instance; "right to claim for reimbursement of expenses under the 688 (1) of the Civil Act" in the 13th judgment; and "right to claim the reimbursement of expenses under the 10th judgment of the court of first instance 13th judgment and the 4th judgment citing the following additional contents of the judgment pursuant to Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Next, we examine whether A has the right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 688(1) of the Civil Act with subrogation claim. It is not sufficient to recognize that A has the right to claim reimbursement of expenses under Article 688(1) of the Civil Act with the testimony of witness C of the first instance trial alone, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, while entering into a sales agency contract, the Defendant and A agreed to stipulate “the interior interior of a household for the promotion of sale” as “A” under Article 2(3)9 and 11 of the sales agency contract as “A shall bear all the expenses related to the commercial affairs” as seen earlier. According to the above facts, A cannot claim the Defendant to return the price for the interior of the instant lending.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow