(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나4431 | 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) 대구지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나4431

대위변제금

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 parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant worked as a business director from March 20, 2014 to April 15, 2015.

In accordance with the defendant's instruction, the plaintiff paid 65,00 UN (Korean 11,70,000 won) total of 52,000 UN (Korean 2,340,000 won) on March 20, 2015 (the payment order is written on March 20, 2014, but it appears to be a clerical error) at the expense of requesting valves in March 6, 2015 (the application for payment order is written on March 6, 2014), on behalf of the defendant, on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant entrusted the plaintiff with all of his authority concerning the valve business, and the plaintiff will first pay the necessary expenses and then demand the defendant to pay the expenses later.

Accordingly, the plaintiff requested the production of gold and paid the expenses as above.

In addition, the plaintiff, upon the defendant's request after withdrawal from the defendant, made a business trip to China and disbursed KRW 1,961,00,000 to the withdrawal equipment (including flight fees) in order to delay the delivery of the lecture and the limited liability construction.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total of KRW 11,70,000, and KRW 1,961,00,000, and the total of KRW 13,661,00,00, and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not request the production of gold with a limited liability in the river basin, and there is no fact that the above company produced gold with a limited liability in the river basin.

After the plaintiff's withdrawal, the defendant did not request that the Chinese business trip be made.

2. The testimony of the witness C at the trial hearing alone is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.04.09 2015고단390

-인천지방법원 2016.12.08 2016고단6141

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.08.09 2012고합304

-서울동부지방법원 2016.09.30 2016가합57

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.03.17 2016고합270