(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2016나2060431

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 2017.05.18 2016나2060431

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following grounds or the determination of a new argument in the appellate court under paragraph (2).

After the 6th six of the first instance judgment, “no reason exists” was added to “(at the appellate court, there is no reason to acknowledge the submitted evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it)” in the following grounds: “(The plaintiff continues to have committed a tort against Defendant C with respect to the preparation, custody, etc. of a written waiver of renunciation, or against a fiduciary relationship.”

Following the first instance judgment’s 6th 18th 18th son of the first instance judgment, “(In this regard, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unable to fulfill the conditions from the beginning or that Defendant D interfered with the fulfillment of the conditions, as the Plaintiff did not perform the conditions from the beginning.”

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant C received KRW 70 million from B on April 4, 2012, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which was paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, as the repayment for the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant C should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million as the obligation to return unjust enrichment or to pay the amount of custody delegated by B, and delay damages.

B. Determination 1) The fact that Defendant C received KRW 70 million, including KRW 20 million, from the Plaintiff on April 4, 2012, from the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant C obtained unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 20 million solely on the basis of the fact that Defendant C received KRW 70 million, including KRW 20 million, in the name of repayment to the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나63907

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2021.02.16 2020고단2008

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.27 2018가단9078

-광주고등법원(제주) 2015.10.21 2015나436

-서울북부지방법원 2015.04.22 2014가합4501