(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.22 2016나208848

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 2018.06.22 2016나208848

약정금 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff’s Defendant Z, which orders payment below.

Reasons

1. Case summary

A. The Defendants are the spouses and children of siblings and siblings of the deceased deceased AA on May 8, 2011.

The Plaintiff asserts that, since the Defendants inherited or inherited the obligation of KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obligated to pay the agreed amount of KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff in proportion to their shares of inheritance (attached Form) and its delay damages.

B. The claims and obligations asserted by the Plaintiff are based on the “written confirmation of the instant case” submitted by the Plaintiff as the evidence No. 19 and the “instant written agreement.”

The confirmation angle of this case is that the deceased AA shall be paid KRW 300 million to the plaintiff at the time of division of property of the deceased AA or at the time of donation or inheritance, with the date of preparation of May 23, 2005, the confirmation person who was the deceased AA, and the receiver as the plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 200 million among them shall be paid at the latest up to 2010.

In addition, the agreement of this case provides an explanation of the name of the agreement and the terms of the agreement set forth in the letter of confirmation of this case by designating the agreed person as the deceased AA and the plaintiff on May 23, 2005. The amount of KRW 200 million is salary-friendly and salary for six years from May 1999 to May 2005, and KRW 100 million for the Plaintiff’s franking AA after May 2005.

C. As to this, the Defendants except the Defendant Z (hereinafter “Defendant G”) asserted that the Defendants do not belong to the deceased AA’s heir or substitute heir.

The husband of the network AA (AG, hereinafter referred to as "AG") and AH (hereinafter referred to as "AH") are successors.

In addition, Defendant G et al. asserts that the instant letter of confirmation, the instant letter of confirmation, and the instant letter of confirmation, etc. are not prepared by the network AA, and on the other hand, Defendant G et al. asserts that even if the instant letter of confirmation, etc. is true, it is an agreement on remuneration for the handling of delegated

Unlike Defendant G, etc., the Defendant Z on April 30, 2013.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.08.25 2012가합5421

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2016.09.21 2016노254

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.21 2016노2606

-수원지방법원 2018.10.12 2016가단45102

-서울고등법원 2018.12.05 2014나20129