(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.11.02 2017나51849

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) 부산고등법원 2017.11.02 2017나51849

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and this is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the judgment of the court of first instance was accepted as follows.

2. The part of the repair used “Defendant C” shall be written by “Codefendant C of the first instance trial,” and “Defendant D” shall be written by “Codefendant D of the first instance trial,” respectively.

5 13 to 6 wheel-up shall be done in the following manner:

1) E Of the instant apartment buildings and officetels, 20 households (G apartments 202, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 401, 412, 413, 414, 415, 502, 1101, 1102; hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The Defendant owned the instant real estate with a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression of the co-defendant D of the first instance trial, who did not have any claim against E, as the Busan District Court No. 7870, Feb. 25, 2009, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 300,000,000, the debtor E and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”).

2) A distribution schedule was prepared to pay dividends to D on the date of distribution of each of the above auction procedures, which was set up by the Busan District Court H, Busan District Court I, and Busan District Court J.

The Defendant had co-defendant C of the first instance trial receive the dividends (hereinafter “instant dividends”) as shown in the following table as his agent:

7 Prior to the “each entry” of the 7th page, the phrase “B 4 and 5” shall be added.

7. The 7th to 19th parallels shall be carried out as follows:

1) The E’s damage claim against the Defendant for tort is in excess of the obligation, and the Defendant, who was a director of E, did not have any claim against E, set up a false right to collateral security and distribute an auction after setting up a false right to collateral security.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.12.14 2017나2036985

-서울고등법원 2019.04.04 2018나2023498

-서울고등법원 2019.04.17 2018나2054522

-서울고등법원 2019.11.14 2019나2023259

-부산고등법원 2018.02.22 2017나55704