(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.17 2016나11587

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 2017.10.17 2016나11587

동업이익금등 청구

Text

1. The appeal filed by the Counterclaim Plaintiff is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to the claim for allocation of residual property, since the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing both the claim for distribution of residual property and the claim for loan, and the court appealed only to the claim for distribution of residual property.

2. As to this part of the facts based on the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2th to 4th 8th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited as the grounds of this judgment

However, two written judgments of the court of first instance shall consist of 5 to 3 pages (c) below.

[1] The Supreme Court Decision 200 million won was delivered on June 1, 2010; the Supreme Court Decision 2000 million won was delivered on June 1, 2010; the Supreme Court Decision 2000 million won was delivered on April 27, 2010; the Supreme Court Decision 2000 million won was delivered on June 1, 2010; the Supreme Court Decision 200 million won was delivered on June 2, 2010; the Supreme Court Decision 200 million won was delivered on April 27, 2010; the Supreme Court Decision 200 million won was delivered on August 22, 2012; and the Supreme Court Decision 200 million won was cancelled on June 28, 2010; and the Supreme Court Decision 200 million won was finalized on August 25, 2010.

3. Determination on the claim of the Counterclaim Plaintiff

A. The partnership business relationship under the instant business agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff’s claim for dissolution. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was entitled to claim the distribution of residual property against the counterclaim Defendant who owns residual property in excess of the distribution ratio (70% of the shares of the Counterclaim and 30% of the shares of the Counterclaim Defendant).

In this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가합3977

-대구지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가합204637

-대전지방법원 2015.06.25 2014가합4594

-대전지방법원 2019.03.20 2018나105048

-서울고등법원 2017.03.23 2016나2059301