(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나58911

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) 인천지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나58911

대여금반환등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part regarding “B.A. judgment” among the part against the defendant of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 18 to No. 3, No. 12) is the same as the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. (1) The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40,000,00 as the joint and several liability amount for the loan of KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff by the Codefendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance trial on October 8, 2012, since there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40,000 as the joint and several liability amount and damages for delay.

(2) The defendant's assertion on the defendant's assertion that since the joint and several surety debt was jointly and severally guaranteed with the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim is groundless since he agreed to terminate the joint and several surety contract with the plaintiff, reversed the original (Evidence A2) and thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. Thus, the plaintiff is not able to submit the original of each of the above statements, i.e., the plaintiff is unable to prove specific grounds to recognize legitimacy of the submission of the original statement (the plaintiff is divided into the original of each of the above case, and it is difficult to distinguish the original from the defendant, etc.). However, in light of witness's testimony, it is difficult to accept the above argument that "each letter's signature was written in black color with the defendant's and witness's signature was written, and the copy was not made separately, and the plaintiff's testimony was written in the court of first instance and the court of first instance before the defendant's testimony."

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2017.01.18 2016나288

-의정부지방법원 2015.06.26 2014나15348

-부산고등법원 2016.04.06 2015나51524

-부산지방법원 2016.09.01 2015나48044

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017나30247