logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.19 2017나2001330
약정금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: Defendant B’s “Defendant B” of the first instance judgment is added to “Co-Defendant B of the first instance court”; Defendant F” to “Co-Defendant F of the first instance court”; and Defendant G’s “Defendant G” to “Co-Defendant G of the first instance court,” respectively, is the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where “Co-Defendant G of the first instance court,” and it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) In light of the developments leading up to the conclusion of the instant agreement, the nature of the Defendant C’s obligation owed to the Plaintiff is substantially the Codefendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”).

2) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)

It is merely a guarantee of the defendant C's obligation, and considering the fact that the defendant C entered into the agreement of this case inevitably at the plaintiff's request due to the need to be released in order to recover the funds invested in the business launched by B's solicitation, the defendant C's liability should be limited in accordance with the principle of good faith. (2) The defendant C's liability should be limited in the case of the investment funds transferred by the plaintiff to the plaintiff for personal purpose. (3) The defendant corporation did not enter into each of the loans of this case as the debtor or the guarantor, and the defendant company was jointly and severally liable for the debt of the defendant company. The agreement of this case is for agreement in a criminal case related to the fraud of the defendant company, which was the representative director of the defendant company, and the agreement of this case is null and void as a legal act contrary to the social rules.

C. The conclusion of the instant agreement is a company.

arrow