logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.04 2015나18215
소유권이전등기 등
Text

1. In accordance with the expansion and reduction of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

2. The plaintiff

Reasons

1. Whether the appeal against Defendant R, among the instant lawsuit, is lawful

A. The relevant legal principles seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, in principle, an appeal against the entire winning judgment shall not be permitted, and whether a judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant or not shall be determined based on the text of the judgment in principle.

In the case of an explicit claim, the party who received the judgment in favor of the whole party may separately claim the remainder of the claim which has not been claimed in the lawsuit in question. Therefore, in the case of an appeal to expand the purport of the claim, the benefit of

However, in a case where a lawsuit seeking performance of a claim is filed against a divisible claim and it does not clearly state that the remaining part is reserved and claimed, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to the remaining part, and thus, it cannot be re-claimed by a separate lawsuit as to the remaining part. Thus, if an appeal is not allowed to expand the remaining part of the claim, the obligee who won the whole part of the claim shall be disadvantaged by losing the opportunity to seek the remainder. Accordingly, in such a case, it is reasonable to acknowledge the benefit of appeal to extend the remaining part of the judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276 delivered on October 24, 1997). B.

Judgment

With respect to Defendant R, while the first instance court received KRW 238,70,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, requested the Plaintiff to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on February 26, 2013, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. However, on the ground that the first instance court did not deduct the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the said real estate.

arrow