(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.29 2014나2018818

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 2015.01.29 2014나2018818

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim that was changed in exchange at the trial, shall be modified as follows.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the same Article, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The reasoning of this part of the judgment on the claim for damages caused by tort is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the rejection of witness F’s testimony, which is evidence insufficient to recognize that F committed an unlawful act, such as deceiving the Plaintiff or was negligent by the F, by promising that H and the Plaintiff can enter into a lease agreement with the Defendant Company with respect to the execution of the Defendant Company’s business, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The reasons for this part of the property tax (land) portion and local education tax for the year 2006 to 2009 are as follows. The reasons for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the remaining parts as follows:

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[고쳐 쓰는 부분] ▣ 제3. 가.

1) subsection (b) shall be filled in as follows:

B) The Defendant alleged that he/she had settled the excess portion of property tax (land and buildings) according to the way of taxation in Gangnam-gu and filed a claim against the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, has a duty to return the excess amount to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the total amount of KRW 131,018,651,425 (from April 17, 2010 to April 16, 2011) and the property tax (land and buildings) in 208,651,425 (from April 17, 2010 to April 16, 2011), and ② the monthly rent (parking fees) and the late payment charge of management expenses until January 17, 201 to April 16, 2011 to KRW 131,018,2718, 2017, 306, 407, 197, 2097, 2097, 2097

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.10.19 2018나2017554

-서울고등법원 2015.01.15 2014나25759

-서울고등법원 2015.01.08 2014나2012827

-대구지방법원김천지원 2016.11.03 2015가단8564

-서울고등법원 2015.01.29 2014나2026062