(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.08.19 2014나11882

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) 창원지방법원 2015.08.19 2014나11882

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The cancellation of the part against the defendant as to the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment, and the cancellation part.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance dismissed the primary claim and partly accepted the conjunctive claim, and the defendant appealed against this, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the legitimacy of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the conjunctive claim, and the primary claim is excluded from the subject of the trial of this court (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da31624, Feb. 10, 1995).2.

A. On February 2013, the plaintiffs asserted that they invested funds to the defendant in order to operate the "E" located in Kimhae-si (hereinafter "the restaurant in this case") between the defendant and the defendant, and the plaintiff A invested KRW 31,950,000 in the defendant, and the plaintiff B invested KRW 11,657,300 in the defendant (hereinafter "the investment money in this case"). Since the defendant promised to refund the above investment money to the plaintiffs around April 2013, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 31,950,00 and the plaintiff B KRW 11,657,30 and delay damages.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not have invested funds in the operation of the restaurant of this case to the defendant, and thus, the defendant did not have an obligation to return the funds of this case to the plaintiffs, and the statement of calculation of the settlement amount (Evidence A 1) prepared by the defendant was made by the strong pressure of the plaintiff B. Thus, the above declaration of intention is revoked by delivery of the response of September 11, 2014.

3. As to whether there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the return of the investment amount of this case, according to the health account statement and evidence No. 1, it can only be acknowledged that the amount is stated in the name of "A" and "B investment amount" among various nominal monetary amounts, and its language alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant agreed to pay the investment amount of this case to the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of the agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiffs.

참조판례

-대법원 1995. 2. 10. 선고 94다31624 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.10.04 2018나2749

-서울고등법원 2018.11.02 2017나2073328

-창원지방법원 2014.10.10 2014가단4876

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단5061498

-광주지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나1922