logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.25 2017나2039014
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

3...

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third end of the paragraph shall be " April 25, 2004" and " February 10, 2004."

(e)afford as follows:

E. G was deceased on May 5, 2007 and his heir died on December 29, 1993, and Plaintiff B, the spouse of R, 3/54 (=1/6 of R x 3/9 of the Plaintiff B’s share of inheritance for the network R x 3/54), Plaintiff C, D, and E, who are R’s children, inherited on behalf of Plaintiff C, D, and E 2/54 (1/6 of the share of inheritance for the network G x 2/54) x Plaintiff C, D, and E 2/94 (2/9 of the share of inheritance for the network R x G ), and died on June 1, 1996, which is the previous death of G, and thus, Plaintiff B, the husband’s husband’s husband’s share of inheritance for the deceased 1/54 (3/1/6 of this case’s share of inheritance for Plaintiff C, D, and E 1/9 of this case’s heir).

2. The court's explanation concerning this part of the liability for damages is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

6 pages 11 et al.

Each "the right of repurchase of the network G" of 6 pages 18 of the paragraph shall be considered as "the right of repurchase of the plaintiff A and the network G", respectively.

(b) 7 pages 7 of the paragraph shall add to the following:

"The defendant has completed the road project of this case until the completion of April 26, 2002, and argued that the road project of this case does not occur when the project is completed as a result of the completion of the project. However, the road project of this case is completed and each of the land of this case is a road.

arrow