(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.23 2017나2006304

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 2017.11.23 2017나2006304

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, judicial precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of the judgment of the court of first instance on the basis of the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court before the citing the judgment of the court of first instance based on the litigation materials and arguments.

The reasoning of this Court is as follows, and the reasoning of this case is stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for an additional determination as to the plaintiff's grounds for appeal. Thus, this Court cites the summary of this case under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(except for the part of the first instance trial for Codefendant AK and AP). 2. 6, 10-1, 6, 2, 4, 6, 11-12, 13, 7, 2, 2-3, and 4 "this Court" are all referred to as "Seoul Western District Court."

Part 15 "paragraph 18" shall be added to "paragraph 16".

Of the table 7-8, paragraph 1, 1, 13-2, 1, 12-2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,

Part 12. The following shall be added to the sixth activity:

(The “amount equivalent to the previously accrued rent” in the attached Table Sheet is the amount equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014 in the case of Defendant U, and from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014 in the case of the remaining Defendants other than Defendant U, the amount equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014. Defendant V completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate stated in the attached list Sheet No. 16 on March 20, 209, but the Plaintiff also sought payment of unjust enrichment or damages from January 1, 207 to Defendant V as above.)

Even if the registration is executed by citing an objection against the decision to dismiss the application for registration, the substantive legal relationship shall be the case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원고등법원 2020.01.30 2019나10725

-수원고등법원 2020.11.19 2019나21312

-서울고등법원 2018.09.06 2017나2071452

-서울고등법원 2017.08.31 2016나2074799