(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.13 2018나2022976

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 2019.06.13 2018나2022976

구상금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the ancillary claim added by this court, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as follows, and the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court, as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The seller's "assignor" in the 6th page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be the buyer's "assignor".

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the "full-time" of Part 3.

The first instance court's "this court" in the fifth second lower judgment is deemed to be "the court of first instance".

On the 8th page of the judgment of the first instance, the defendants are moving to "the defendants" as "the defendants."

No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance court, " not only did it go without" of the first instance court No. 11.

In the first instance judgment of October 8, 2012, "The first sales contract of October 8, 2012" of the first instance judgment of the first instance is deemed "the first sales contract of October 5, 201."

Part 11 of the first instance judgment "by December 31, 2013" shall be deemed "by December 31, 2014."

Then, the first instance court’s 11th lower judgment’s “Non-performance” was added, “The first floor convenience store operation right of the instant building was not transferred to the Defendants at the intervals of compensating the Defendants.”

The first instance court's first instance court's 12th 3th 12th 12th 3th 2th 3th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 2th 201, "In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the above 1st 1st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.05.02 2018나2044204

-대전고등법원 2020.11.25 2020나11863

-서울고등법원 2016.07.07 2015나2051713

-부산고등법원 2019.12.11 2019나54415

-서울고등법원 2017.04.18 2016나2082622