logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나54525
약정금
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 reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, and the reasons for the acceptance of this case are as follows: Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 17 (including the number of branch numbers) and the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of witness Q from the trial, which lack to admit the defendant's assertion as evidence that was additionally submitted in the court of first instance. Thus, it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the first instance court's decision from "the defendant" to "the third party" in the seventh-party 17th judgment of the first instance court shall be as follows:

“The Defendant alleged that, as the Defendant’s insufficient funds, the remaining amount of the balance in the deposit account in the Defendant’s name was paid from time to time, whenever the Plaintiff’s demand is made, the Defendant paid a large amount of business allowances exceeding the business allowances that the Plaintiff would pay to the Plaintiff due to the failure to accurately calculate the details paid to the Plaintiff in the process. However, the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant’s deposit account in the Defendant’s name does not coincide with the current status of the deposit account in the Defendant’s name (i.e., the fact that the deposit account in the Defendant’s name is the account in which the marina loan is made, and the amount that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff as indicated above appears to have been paid through the marina loan, but it does not appear that the amount of the marina loan at the time of the Defendant’s demand to the Plaintiff does not reach the limit)

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow