(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.25 2018나75108

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) 수원지방법원 2019.10.25 2018나75108

사해행위취소

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

purport.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The grounds for appeal by Defendant C based on the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the newly presented evidence is added to the newly presented evidence in the court of first instance.

This Court's reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the statements within the scope of the following subparagraphs after the fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the replacement of the fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance "(2)" into "three(3)." Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【2) Defendant C asserts that Defendant C does not have a duty to pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff, as the Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance trial fully assumed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff consented thereto.

Accordingly, the health class and the exemption from liability is that a third party assumes the obligation under a contract with the debtor and discharges the debtor's obligation (Article 454 (1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that B provided the defendant C with the responsibility for the obligation arising out of the partnership relationship is recognized as above. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above recognition alone, in the fact that B, who is jointly and severally liable with the defendant C, agreed to assume the obligation of the plaintiff with the defendant against the plaintiff in the internal relationship with the defendant C, was exempted from the obligation of the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

[B] A witness at the trial and stated to the effect that “whether he is liable to the Plaintiff according to an agreement with Defendant C” is not the part that the Plaintiff should speak.” On the other hand, B decided to exempt Defendant C from the obligation.

참조조문

-민법 제454조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단18010

-부산지방법원 2015.05.27 2014나14570

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.05.22 2018가단2307

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.02.15 2016가단9976

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.10 2013가합511416