(영문) 대구고등법원 2017.11.02 2017나21214

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) 대구고등법원 2017.11.02 2017나21214

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is that of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment as to the instant case, since it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding or adding the following matters. Thus, it is citing this as is in accordance

2. Part 12 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is added or used after being added, shall be the following parts: (d) the defendant shall continue to be in existence:

D. On February 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for embezzlement by the Daegu District Court on the crime of embezzlement (Tgu District Court 2014Ma3). The judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2017 through the appellate court and the final appeal of final appeal. The following is added to the fourth ten-party 10 of the judgment of the first instance.

According to the above evidence, the part of the repayment of KRW 10 million against the defendant on June 25, 2015 was testified to the purport that the part of the repayment of KRW 10 million on January 20, 2012 against the defendant on June 2015 (Evidence 4) was recognized (Evidence 6), and the defendant transferred KRW 100 million on May 14, 2012 from the criminal case No. 2014GaGa3 to the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account to recover the damage caused by the embezzlement (Evidence 6, No. 2, No. 3-1). Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to the defendant on January 13, 2012 as well as the above fact that the defendant cannot be deemed to have been obligated to return KRW 40 million to the plaintiff on May 14, 2012.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no ground. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2017나25322

-서울고등법원 2017.07.05 2017누43724

-대구고등법원 2019.05.09 2018나23903

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.02 2016나43468

-대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2017나25346