(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단248380

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단248380

채권양도통지 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant shall claim against the non-party Republic of Korea (the public official in charge of deposit in the Seoul Central District Court) listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings in witness B’s testimony, the fact that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on September 26, 2013 that the defendant would transfer the defendant’s claim against the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the claim of this case”) to the plaintiff with the purport that the defendant would transfer the defendant’s claim to the plaintiff (hereinafter “the claim of this case”).

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the transferor of the claim is obligated to notify the Republic of Korea (the deposit officer of the Seoul Central District Court), which is the debtor, that the defendant transferred the claim of this case to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion: Seoul High Court 2012Na42903 (Reversal and remanded) that he/she was the defendant, delegated the business related to the appointment of a lawyer at the Seoul High Court 2012Na42903 (Reversal and remanded) to Co-Defendant C religious Organization D D religious Organization's branch of the above case, and issued a certificate of seal impression several times at the request of Co-Defendant B in relation to the above business, but the conclusion of the contract by B to the assignment of claims in this case was deviating from the scope of delegation; on the other hand, Eul committed an act falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 109 of the Attorney-at-Law

Therefore, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the testimony of the witness B, the defendant with respect to the case of Seoul High Court 2012Na42903 decided August 18, 2012:

1. Powers of institution and withdrawal of action;

2. Authority to appoint an agent;

3. Authority to decide costs of lawsuit;

4. judicial reconciliation or conciliation authority;

5. Appeal and filing and withdrawal of an appeal;

6. Application for the determination of costs of lawsuit and authority to appeal;

7.The authority to use the seals and seals;

8. The power of attorney shall be drawn up and sent to delegate all the powers due to the instant case.

참조조문

-변호사법 제109조 제1호

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2020.08.18 2019가단12601

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.05.18 2016가단83484

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.10.10 2017가단2076

-부산지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단51292

-서울중앙지방법원 2015. 02. 03. 선고 2014가합518049 판결