logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.12 2018나42129
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The conjunctive combination of claims in this Court is a combination of claims seeking a trial on the conjunctive claims (the second claims) in preparation for the failure to accept the main claims (the second claims) among several concurrent claims. In the case of such conjunctive consolidations, the plaintiff must judge the conjunctive claims according to the order attached by him, and in the case of rejection of the main claims, it is not necessary to judge the conjunctive claims in the following order. Thus, the judgment accepting the main claims is a judgment in whole, and if the defendant appeals against this judgment, the subsequent conjunctive claims which were not tried in the first instance and the appellate court rejects the main claims which were cited in the first instance, it is necessary to judge the next conjunctive claims.

In addition, in the case of such preliminary consolidation, several claims are indivisiblely combined into one litigation procedure, and thus, a partial judgment, such as accepting only the conjunctive claims, rejecting only the main claims, and rejecting only the main claims, is contrary to the nature of the preliminary consolidation, and thus, legal permission is not allowed. Nevertheless, in the case where a judgment is rendered that does not judge the conjunctive claims while rejecting the main claims, if an appeal is filed against the judgment, the conjunctive claims whose judgment is omitted shall be transferred to the appellate court, and it shall not be deemed that the part falls under the omission of the judgment and shall not be deemed as continuing

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da22253, Nov. 16, 2000). With respect to the instant case, the health care unit, and the Plaintiff around February 11, 2016 between the Plaintiff and C, as well as KRW 3,064,457, based on the joint and several several surety obligations under a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and C.

arrow