(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.17 2014나59776

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) 서울고등법원 2015.06.17 2014나59776

보관금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and above.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim;

2. The grounds for this part of the judgment of the court concerning the defendant's assertion are as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) No. 2, 17 of the Act No. 420 shall be deemed to be a “written copy of the register,” and a “written certificate,” respectively.

According to the facts of the above recognition, the third 1st 1st am as follows.

In addition to the above facts, E claimed a loan claim lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul High Court 2014Na2510, Seoul High Court 2014Na2510), the Defendant asserted that “The Plaintiff released the provisional attachment execution by paying KRW 145 million to the Defendant on April 1, 2014, on the basis of his seal imprint, etc., and on the basis of the premise that the purchase price of the instant house was KRW 145 million to E upon the conclusion of the agreement with the other provisional attachment right holders, the Defendant claimed that “the amount of debt of KRW 15 million to E was KRW 45 million to the other provisional attachment rights holders, and then the execution of the provisional attachment was cancelled or partly cancelled after the repayment of the debt amount of KRW 45 million to the other provisional attachment rights holders (Evidence 5,000,000,0000,000 to the other provisional attachment rights holders).” This asserted that “The provisional attachment execution may be cancelled by the Defendant’s sale of the instant house under the premise that the sales price would be KRW 3638.5 million.

According to Article 684(1) of the Civil Act, on April 1, 2008, the day following the completion of the delegated affairs by the Defendant, the mandatary shall deliver money, goods, and other things received from the handling of the delegated affairs to the mandator in the event of negligence. In this case, unless there are special agreements between the parties or contravenes the essence of the delegation, the time of delivery shall be unless there are special circumstances, such as where there is a violation

참조조문

-민법 제684조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.08.19 2015나2016802

-서울고등법원 2015.09.23 2015나2654

-서울고등법원 2015.09.23 2014나2038775

-서울고등법원 2013.10.16 2013나13186

-서울고등법원 2015.10.28 2015나2027017