(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.04 2015나2069752

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 2016.11.04 2015나2069752

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's successor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

purport.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this case is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the part 3 pages 2, which is dismissed or added, shall be referred to as “I”.

The 5th 10th 10th 10th 1st 10th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st

Under 5, the following 3 statements are as follows: (a) “Plaintiff is merely a director of the board of directors (only a director is alleged to be lost).”

According to paragraph 5 of the MOU of this case, it can be seen that there are three originals and the bankrupt, E, and G respectively.

After the filing of the instant lawsuit on July 7, 2014, the bankrupt party presented a copy of the instant MOU as evidence to the first instance court on May 1, 2009. However, the Defendant applied for the submission of the original MOU and the appraisal of the seal imprinting time, and accordingly, the first instance court ordered the bankrupt to submit the original on the second date for pleading, and the bankrupt asserted that the bankrupt lost the original as a director on June 30, 2014 through the preparatory document dated January 14, 2015. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s attorney stated that “the original MOU stating that E was lost,” on the first date for pleading, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor stated that “the original MOU was lost” refers to the original MOU which was presented by the bankrupt, and that “the above statement was revoked to E,” and that the Defendant’s submission of the original MOU as the result of the second date for pleading shall be preserved and preserved as the original MOU’s evidence.”

However, on June 30, 2014, E lost the original of the MOU as a witness of the first instance court and the original of the MOU in this case in the process of a director of the bankrupt on June 30, 2014.

[Attachment].]

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.31 2017가단5022622

-울산지방법원 2017.07.20 2016나4440 (1)

-대전지방법원 2006.11.16.자 2005하면1330 결정

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.17 2015가합560450

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.10 2015가단104107