logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.29 2018나26610
환매대금 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion added by the defendant in this court. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion that if the plaintiff did not prepare and deliver the confirmation document of this case (No. 3) that the plaintiff would confirm that the purchase of the shares of this case would take place due to the price of C's share price, the plaintiff would use the plaintiff's husband only for the purpose of coming to her husband while stating that the plaintiff's husband would knife the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff also knew or could have known of such fact, so the defendant's declaration of intention to take over the shares of this case is null and void by a bad declaration of intention.

Even if the declaration of intention of this case does not constitute a false declaration of intention, the defendant prepared the confirmation document of this case by misunderstanding that it will be used only for the purpose of showing the plaintiff's husband as such, and this constitutes a declaration of intention due to the plaintiff's deception or mistake of motive caused by the plaintiff's deception and cancellation thereof.

B. As the Plaintiff could have a knife with respect to the purchase of the instant shares, the Plaintiff prepared and changed the instant confirmation document to the Defendant for the purpose of showing her husband, and the Defendant prepared a false confirmation document of this case without the intent to actually bear the obligation pursuant to the instant confirmation document, and the Plaintiff also knew or could have known such fact, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant shows the certificate of this case from the plaintiff to the plaintiff's husband.

arrow