(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.06.05 2019나2039209

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 2020.06.05 2019나2039209

채무부존재확인

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as follows: ① use “D” in the 5th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as “I stock company”; addition of “Plaintiff A” in the 11th sentence inside the 5th sentence of the same judgment; addition of “No. 7 and 10” in the 9th sentence “No. 4; addition of “No. 5,500,000” in the 9th sentence to “No. 5,500,000” and “No. 5,50,000,000” in the 9th sentence; ② use “No. 6th sentence of the 10th sentence following the 10th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance.”

(3) With respect to the allegations added by the plaintiffs in this Court, the following parts are added.

In addition to the determination in paragraph (1), the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment (the fact-finding and determination of the first instance court are recognized as legitimate even if the circumstances alleged by the plaintiffs and the evidence submitted by the court are added). We accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

This part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the following part of the 10th 6th 6th son of the judgment of the court of first instance) provides that “The project subject to the investment contract of this case is a large-scale multi-family housing development project that constructs apartment buildings exceeding 1,700 households in the Shinsi-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si. The investment contract of this case provides that the defendant shall designate the defendant as the first 3rd priority beneficiary after the financial institution and the Si Corporation when concluding the land trust contract of this case. Considering these circumstances, the issue of whether the defendant is entitled to receive the business profit of this case can be seen as somewhat uncertain depending on the success of the project (the defendant is considered to have been established on some land in relation to the investment of this case, but it is deemed that the investment

Until the defendant is paid the above business profit, it is anticipated that the defendant will take considerable long-term measures.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2019.03.20 2018누11706

-서울고등법원 2017.07.07 2015나26773

-대전지방법원 2019.10.30 2018나110422

-대전고등법원 2017.01.11 2016나293

-서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2016나2087566