(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.20 2016나2010405

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) 서울고등법원 2017.06.20 2016나2010405

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are dismissed or added. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

A. Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "the gold rate" in Part 3 is "the gold rate", the part 4 is "the plaintiff and the 7", the part 10 of the part 10 is "the part 11", and the part 2 subparagraph 2 of the part 10 is "the part 620 meters in the part 2 of the early payment (620 meters in the part 620 meters in the part 20th of the early payment from the part 15, the part 12 of the part 10 in the part 11 is "the part 620 meters in the part 620 in the part 3, the part 620 meters in the part 3, the part 15th part is "the part 5th part of the road of this case".

B. On the 18th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

The defendant asserts that the cause for delay in the removal and the delay in the installation of the embankment by the preceding work, the plaintiffs' design errors, and the plaintiffs' intentional delay in the commencement of construction in order to avoid conflict with the construction works, and to improve the construction performance, based on the fact-finding results, etc. of the fact-finding on the gas gas in the trial and the gas station of this case. However, the defendant filed a false report to the defendant as if the delay in the construction of the secondary water station was not attributable to the plaintiffs, and it was not known that the cause for delay in the secondary water station construction was attributable to the plaintiffs, and the defendant did not know that the cause for delay in the secondary water station construction was attributable to the plaintiff, and that the extension of the construction period was permitted by such false report or that the plaintiff made a false reply to the auditor at the Board of Audit and Inspection.

However, the above fact-finding results alone make a false report to the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.01.08 2014가합102857

-서울행정법원 2017.01.06 2016구합70314

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.24 2012가합532539

-서울고등법원 2008.01.18 2007나28385

-서울고등법원 2020.09.23 2020나2007673