(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.07.18 2016나57895

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) 인천지방법원 2017.07.18 2016나57895

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized in the trial or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The height of the part of the first instance judgment "U" in Section 11 of the Decision No. 6 of the High Court Decision shall be changed to V.

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, "A" in Part 15 shall be deemed to be "Plaintiff".

Each "Agreement" in the 10th 5, 7, 8, and 10th 10th 10 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be understood as "written confirmation".

3. Matters to be judged additionally;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to include KRW 110,00,000 in the construction amount of KRW 2,079,000 as at the time of the agreement made on December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to include the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 110,00,00,000. Accordingly, the amount of the Plaintiff’s performance should be deemed as being appropriated for the repayment of the instant debt of the instant notarial deed (legal appropriation in the order of appropriation, designation appropriation, or reimbursement interest). This is ① (i) the construction amount under the agreement made on December 18, 2013 is larger than the construction amount of the original contract entered into with the Plaintiff, and ② the amount of the instant notarial deed debt borrowed by the Plaintiff from the Defendant was used as the amount of the notarial deed L Corporation’s capital, which would result in double reimbursement, and ③ the Defendant did not accept all claims and obligations related to L Corporation’s construction work amount until the end of the agreement.

Therefore, the amount repaid by the Plaintiff should be considered as the repayment of the debt of this case, not the construction cost.

3 When the Plaintiff first borrowed KRW 110,000,000 from the Defendant, the Defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.10 2014나46565

-부산고등법원 2016.10.19 2016나52494

-부산고등법원(창원) 2015.02.05 2013나21348

-서울고등법원 2019.10.30 2018나2059558

-인천지방법원 2017.08.08 2016나62941