(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.22 2016나210360

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 2017.11.22 2016나210360

공동부담금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the unpaid common costs contributions and the “common costs contributions related to the rehabilitation company, etc.,” and the first instance court partly accepted the Defendant’s claim for the “unpaid common costs contributions,” and dismissed the claim in full. The Defendant’s claim was dismissed.

Since only the defendant appealed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the unpaid common costs related to the defendant.

2. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: "C. Joint construction cost claimed by the representative shall be deposited into the representative's designated account prior to the designated date; however, if delayed without any justifiable reason, a claim and deposit shall be made by adding interest calculated by applying the overdue interest rate to the representative's principal bank; if a joint subcontractor fails to pay by the designated date, it shall be dealt with in the settlement pursuant to the following Paragraph (d)." Paragraph (3) of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted, and the reasons for the judgment of the first instance shall be the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the determination that the defendant raised an additional claim by the court of first instance is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Additional determination

A. Determination 1 on this safety defense is based on the purport of the Defendant’s assertion that the right to make a contribution to the union members is the partnership’s property and the partnership’s property belongs to the partnership’s partnership’s partnership property. As such, a lawsuit on a claim belonging to the partnership’s property constitutes an essential co-litigation to be jointly filed by the partnership members as a lawsuit on the partnership property. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the Plaintiff’s investment (joint cost share) raised solely by the Plaintiff (which is unlawful) without being

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.11.21 2016나210346

-서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2016나208718

-광주고등법원(전주) 2015.01.29 2014나50

-서울고등법원 2014.12.12 2014나31792

-서울고등법원 2016.09.28 2016나2007416