logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.27 2016나2043931
대여금
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. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the witness G in Section 12 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “A witness G of the court of first instance”; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment of the Defendant in the trial to the following.

B. The defendant's new assertion 1) The defendant, at the time, ordered the plaintiff at the time the cooperative head of the C Urban Environment Improvement Zone to contract the removal of construction work within the above urban environment improvement zone and lent the above money without interest agreement by promising the above loan to pay the removal construction cost together. Since these lending contracts are illegal transactions falling under breach of trust and evidence, the plaintiff cannot claim the return of the above loan, which is illegal consideration, to the defendant. 2) The illegal cause as stipulated in Article 746 of the Civil Act for the reason that prohibition of the claim for return of unjust enrichment is prohibited refers to the case where the caused act violates good morals and other social order. Even if the act violates the prohibition of law, it does not constitute the case where it does not violate good morals and other social order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da7477, Nov. 13, 2011; 2003Da41722, Nov. 27, 2003).

arrow