logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.12.09 2015나50897
해지시지급금 청구 등
Text

1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be modified as follows:

Defendant Republic of Korea.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following items of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 21, part 11 and part 12 "The result of appraisal by appraiserO implemented by this court" shall be "the result of appraisal by appraiserO of the first instance court".

Part 2. The following shall be added to Chapter 15:

Meanwhile, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the effect that this case’s second supplementary agreement constitutes a juristic act in breach of social order and thus cannot be recognized as valid in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act. In the event that the president’s act of concluding the second supplementary agreement constitutes an act in breach of trust against Defendant Republic of Korea and the Plaintiff, the contracting party, actively participated in the act in breach of trust, such as inducing or inducing the president to commit an act in breach of trust against Defendant, or participating in the entire process of breach of trust, the instant second supplementary agreement may be deemed null and void as it constitutes an anti-social juristic act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47677, Mar. 26, 2009). However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the second supplementary agreement by the president of B University constitutes an act in breach of social order against Defendant Republic of Korea. Even if so, even if so, the submission of evidence by the Defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff actively participated in the act in breach of trust against Defendant Republic of Korea.

A person shall be appointed.

(a) Determination 1 on the simultaneous performance defenses of Defendant Republic of Korea is the defendant.

arrow