(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.19 2017나48781

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.19 2017나48781

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. A.

A change from the trial to the other.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The letter "I Eup" in Part II, 17 of the first instance judgment, written or added, shall be written into J Eup, and K shall be written into "L", respectively.

In addition, the following shall be added between the fourth and thirteenth of the judgment of the first instance:

2. In a case where the existence or content of a claim is confirmed as stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors in an ex officio judgment on the legitimacy of a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, with respect to a claim indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors submitted by the obligor in the proceedings for individual rehabilitation, there is no benefit to dispute by a lawsuit. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant C filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the District Court 2016 Ma33184, and received the decision to commence individual rehabilitation on May 19, 2017. Defendant C entered the total amount of the claim claim filed by the Plaintiff by the lawsuit in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors at the time of filing the application for the above individual rehabilitation, and the Plaintiff’s damage claim against Defendant C is confirmed as stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors. Thereafter, the claim for damages against the Plaintiff was finalized until the decision to authorize the repayment plan on October 12, 2017. Accordingly, the claim for damages against the Defendant C had already been brought against the judgment of the first instance court and the second instance court.

3. The defendant B and the defendant Association

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2017나20479

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.21 2016나69194

-서울고등법원 2015.11.13 2014나2051549

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017나35662

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나17749