logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.22 2015나2030617
약정금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision or addition as follows.

The evidence No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to "Evidence No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance" with "Evidence No. 4 and 15 of the judgment."

The following shall be added after the 16th day of the first instance judgment:

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s assertion of the extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights or is contrary to the good faith principle. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the extinctive prescription is insufficient to recognize that there are special circumstances, such as: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the extinctive prescription constitutes abuse of rights; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the extinctive prescription falls under an abuse of rights; (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the extinctive prescription or the testimony of the first instance court of C, either made it impossible or considerably difficult for the Plaintiff to exercise his right or extinctive prescription before the completion of the prescription; (d) there was an objective obstacle to the Plaintiff to exercise his right; or (e) the Plaintiff’s refusal to invoke the prescription after the completion of the prescription; or (e) there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was any other special circumstance, such as making the Plaintiff trust as such; or (e) making the refusal to perform the other obligation remarkably unfair or unfair; and (e) there is no other evidence to recognize it contrary to the good

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow