(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.23 2014나2043845

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) 서울고등법원 2015.10.23 2014나2043845

공사대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this Court’s explanation concerning the parties’ assertion and the cause of the claim are as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o In Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the result of the submission of an order to submit a report on the inside of the court of first instance" is added as evidence in Part 7.

o Part 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court, "Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the Evidence Nos. 3-1 and 8 of the Evidence No. 3-2 of the judgment of the first instance court" shall be applied to "No. 1, 2 of the Evidence No. 3, No. 3-6, and No. 4-8 of the Judgment No. 3 of the first instance court, respectively, to "No.

o Article 13 of the Judgment of the first instance court No. 3 provides that "The defendant paid " 140,000,000 won of value-added tax paid by the plaintiff shall be recognized, and there is no other evidence that the defendant paid the construction cost, including the above value-added tax, to the plaintiff (the witness B of the first instance court testified that the value-added tax was to be paid to the plaintiff upon deposit into the defendant passbook, and that there was no balance on the wind attached by the National Tax Service, which did not exist any balance on the wind attached by the National Tax Service)."

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-3, as shown below, the plaintiff was paid KRW 906,00,000 from the defendant side to the plaintiff as follows (J is the mother of Eul, K is the company run by B, and L is the defendant's female and female, and L is the wife of the defendant). Among them, KRW 145,300,000 has been withdrawn again from the defendant's side, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 760,70,000 (= KRW 906,00,000 - KRW 145,30,000).

Meanwhile, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the construction cost exceeding the above recognition scope was paid to the Plaintiff.

Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff on October 29, 2009.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.09.21 2016나6592

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.22 2016나85073

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.10 2017나28749

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나8159

-서울고등법원 2018.07.20 2017나2073755