(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나512

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나512

손해배상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows.

In the first instance judgment, 2 pages 12 to 16 shall be amended as follows:

[In light of the Defendant’s wrongful criminal complaint, the Plaintiff received mental shock, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a solatium of KRW 10 million and delay damages therefor. ] The Defendant revised the first instance judgment of KRW 3 11-12 to “Mison fact” to “Mison the Plaintiff managing the money in question according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s management of the money in question, and the remainder was returned to KRW 19,00,000 among them, and the Plaintiff did not return it.”

The judgment of the court of first instance on the 3rd page 16th page " " cannot be seen" is a matter to be proved through the examination of the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). Since the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is for the confirmation of the plaintiff's right to demand performance and for the performance order against the defendant, it is difficult to see the defendant's standing to be the defendant. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's standing to be a party exists by the plaintiff's assertion that there is any defect in the party's standing, but in the lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff and the defendant are in the party's right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether there is a right to demand performance or not is actually a right to demand performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44394, Oct. 7, 2005).

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 10. 7. 선고 2003다44387, 44394 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나512

-인천지방법원 2017.09.21 2017나51603

-창원지방법원 2018.07.12 2017나60076

-수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나65705

-대법원 2015.06.24 2014다81177