(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나55175

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) 광주지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나55175

사해행위취소

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 defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence submitted in this

Therefore, this court's reasoning is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The part 3rd page 21 of that part shall be written by cutting "C" to "C".

The third parallel of the fourth parallel of conduct " January 7, 2015" shall be applied to " January 6, 2015".

Part 9 of the 4th page "negative" is written by converting "C" into "negative property."

Part 5 7-13 of the 5th page "(1) there is room for the defendant to see," shall be written as follows.

“(1) The Defendant prepared the No. C and the instant No. 400 million won on August 4, 2014, 2014, which was after C’s application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the Defendant did not present objective and sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant actually lent KRW 400 million to C, such as the content of the said No. 1, [in light of the fact that the Defendant submitted the evidence No. 7 or 11 on April 17, 2017, which was after the closing of argument in the first instance trial, the said evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant actually lent KRW 400 million to C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

[2] The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the preparation of the above notarial deed

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2020.10.16 2020나22323

-인천지방법원 2020.11.10 2020나54480

-광주지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나56147

-부산고등법원(창원) 2020.10.08 2019나12964

-광주지방법원 2017.10.18 2016나57624