(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.03 2015나54317

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.03 2015나54317

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff’s act of paying KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2014, with respect to the so-called electronic bonds ( KRW 84,59,700) and non-electronic bonds ( KRW 11,608,968), the Defendant’s act of paying KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2014, can be evaluated as a waiver of the statute of limitations for all the above electronic bonds and non-electronic bonds, or as a waiver of the statute of limitations interest for non-electronic bonds, and the reason why the court’s reasoning is stated is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following 2, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the judgment of the first instance court is acceptable with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant by dividing it into electronic bonds (on March 31, 2014, the date of the completion of the statute of limitations) and non-electronic bonds (on December 10, 2013, the date of the completion of the statute of limitations), but it is erroneous to interpret the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2014 as waiver of the statute of limitations benefits only with respect to non-electronic bonds.

However, according to the records, from July 3, 2012 at the first issue as to whether the Defendant is liable for the repayment of the instant electronic bonds, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept in light of the following: (a) from around July 3, 2012, the first issue was whether the obligor is liable for the repayment of the instant non-electronic bonds; (b) the Defendant clearly expressed in writing the intent that “the obligor was changed from the Defendant to the e-mail construction; and (c) the Defendant is not liable for the said electronic bonds; and (d) the Defendant recognized the Defendant as liable for the repayment of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on March 2

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

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.10.01 2014나102362

-대전고등법원 2015.09.17 2015나10279

-대법원 2017. 7. 11. 선고 2014다32458 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.21 2017가단101950

-대구지방법원 2016.09.21 2016나705