logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.11.05 2019나100132
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as there is no ground.

[Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in a case where the agreement of this case was not accepted, the Plaintiff filed an application for resumption of argument in order to add unjust enrichment, damages, or claims for distribution of residual assets in preliminary and to clarify it. In a case where a party files an application for resumption of argument in order to submit arguments and evidence after the closing of argument, whether to accept the application for resumption of argument belongs to the court’s discretion in principle. However, as the party who filed the application for resumption of argument did not have the opportunity to submit arguments and evidence for the reasons that it was difficult to impose liability on him/her before the closing of argument, and the subject of the argument and certification constitutes an infinite fact requiring proof that can determine the outcome of the judgment, the court is obligated to resume the pleading and continue the trial in a case where it goes against the procedural justice pursued of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da73295, Sept. 8, 2011).

In addition, on September 30, 2019, the Plaintiff was present at the first day for pleading of the trial, which was changed to two weeks after the Plaintiff’s request, and stated the petition of appeal, without giving any reply to the order to prepare for seat, which was September 16, 2019, stating specific grounds for appeal by September 30, 201.

arrow