(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.12.12 2018나71536

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 2019.12.12 2018나71536

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. As to this case, this court's explanation is the same as the entry of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional matters, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters;

A. The defendant's assertion is that Article 4 of the special terms and conditions of Gap evidence No. 1 (the contract) set forth only the time to pay the down payment, and it does not necessarily mean that the contract is changed to the name of the owner, and it is not necessary for the defendant to change the name of the owner to the name of the owner in the future.

Therefore, the change of the name of the owner can not be considered as the main duty of the contract, and the contract can not be cancelled even if the contract is not performed.

B. As seen earlier than the relationship between the first and the second contracts of this case, Article 4(5) through (8) of the terms of the first contract of this case imposes on the Defendant the obligation to actively consent to the issuance and loan, etc. of permission for development acts. It is confirmed that the Defendant agreed from the Defendant to change the person who has obtained permission for development activities from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The first contract of this case loses its effect by the conclusion of the second contract of this case in lieu thereof. However, although the first contract of this case loses its effect by the conclusion of the second contract of this case in lieu thereof, it is a trace of revealing the contract process between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is an important circumstantial material in interpreting the second contract of this case. Accordingly, the content of the first contract of this case is an important circumstantial material in interpreting the second contract of this case. The first contract of this case is that the Defendant should promptly change the name of the person who has obtained permission for development acts.

The purport of the whole pleadings is neglected to some testimonys.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.13 2018나56574

-대전지방법원 2019.07.03 2017가단7009

-서울서부지방법원 2018.05.11 2017나39799

-대구지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나310420

-대구지방법원 2018.06.21 2017가합207387