(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.02 2016나2083977

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) 서울고등법원 2017.11.02 2016나2083977

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as follows: “The result of the party’s examination, which seems to conform to the Defendant’s assertion, is difficult to believe it as it is.” Meanwhile, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the Defendant Company and the Defendant C’s assertion is added in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of 5 pages 4 “38,987,506 won” shall be deemed to read “38,987,536 won”.

10 pages 10, “no evidence exists” means that “no evidence exists. In addition, the Defendant Company asserts that the principal content of the above document was affixed with the seal of the Defendant Company, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.”

At the bottom of 13 to 2, the “62 No. 62” was raised with “62, 73, 74, 75”.

14. The 7th page "the instant lawsuit" shall be deemed to be "the instant counterclaim."

3. Additional determination

A. As to the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant C and the defendant C's counterclaim, the defendant C asserts that the contract to establish a pledge (No. 76-1) and the document to provide security (No. 76-3 of the document No. 76-3 of the document) prepared under the above defendant's name is invalid since it was concluded on the basis of the invalid pledge contract.

According to the evidence Nos. 76-1 and 3 of the above evidence No. 76-3, the fact that the seal of the defendant B was affixed to each of the defendant C’s contracts to establish a pledge and written confirmation under the name of the defendant C is recognized, but the following circumstances, i.e., the object of the above pledge contract, is the personal pension trust bond of the defendant C, and the transaction seal reported by the defendant C to the plaintiff, who is the trustee of the above personal pension trust, is not the defendant C, not the defendant C.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.01.11 2016가단508900

-대전고등법원 2017.08.30 2017나10365

-전주지방법원 2019.10.18 2018나10718

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가단20781

-서울고등법원 2016.12.09 2015나2023435 (1)