(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나61558

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) 서울남부지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나61558

증권

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the contract to transfer “a transfer” (hereinafter “instant gift contract”) under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the contract of first instance”) shall be deemed to be “a transfer and transfer,” and (b) the third part of the judgment “a promise was made, or an implied or implied agreement was made,” respectively; and (c) the Plaintiff’s additional determination as to the assertion added by this court is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is unfair to allow the Defendant to continue to own the instant shares in light of the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of fairness, even though any change in circumstances that was unexpected at the time of entering into the instant gift contract, upon the Defendant’s retirement after short-term service at the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff’s continued possession of the instant shares. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s subrogation of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff

The termination of a contract on the ground of change in circumstances is recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where a significant change in circumstances that the parties could not have predicted at the time of the formation of the contract occurred, and such change in circumstances arose due to reasons for which the party who has acquired the right of rescission is not responsible for the party who has acquired the right of rescission.

In addition, any change in this context means an objective circumstance that served as the basis of the contract, not a subjective or personal circumstance of a party.

Therefore, a party was unable to achieve the intended purpose of the contract at the time of the contract due to changes in the circumstances which are not the basis for the formation of the contract.

Even if there are no special circumstances, the terms of the contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.02.03 2016나2044224

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018가합6230

-대법원 2007. 3. 29. 선고 2004다31302 판결

-서울고등법원 2015.04.02 2014누5646

-대법원 2016.07.14 2015다50934