(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.02 2016나9015 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2016.12.02 2016나9015

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. A supplementary appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and an additional appeal at the trial.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, and except for adding the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the court of first instance, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the same shall apply pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"685,400 won" in the last sentence of the second place shall be "686,400 won".

"No. 12" shall be added to evidence of the lack of conduct 5.

Part 6 of Part 2 through 3 provides that “No evidence exists to prove that the Defendant had constructed 8 toilets ABS entrances,” “No evidence to prove that the Defendant had constructed 8 toilets of toilets only with the statement of No. 13, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had built 8 toilets of toilets, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.”

6.As evidence of the lack of conduct 7th, the references to â………§ 4, 5, 14 to â…………§ 19 shall be added.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion added at the trial room

A. As to the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case, the plaintiff alleged that although the court of first instance accepted only KRW 26,079,00 as a result of the appraisal of the costs of the non-execution of the construction work in this case at the court of first instance, since the court of first instance accepted only KRW 10,209,00,000, the difference shall be paid more than KRW 15,870,000,000, the plaintiff paid only KRW 75,000,000,000, out of the total construction cost of this case 10,000,000,000 as a result of the appraisal of the first instance court at the court of first instance, the costs of construction of the non-execution of the construction work in this case at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court below, the plaintiff shall be paid KRW 26,5,000,00,00,00,00.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.05.27 2015나16887

-부산지방법원 2016.11.11 2016나44421

-부산지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나9336

-서울고등법원 2015.09.18 2014나50403

-수원지방법원 2014.10.16 2014나4399