logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (제주) 2018.05.23 2017나10901
토지매매대금
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 first instance court.

Reasons

The reasons why this Court should explain concerning this case are partially added as follows, and the reasons why the defendant's new assertion in the court of first instance is as stated in the column of reasons for the judgment, except for further determination as to the matters newly asserted in the court of first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The following additional statements are made in Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance, “it shall not be eligible for the approval of debt” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff asserted that prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, G Co., Ltd. or its representative director C approved the debt and suspended the prescription, and that its effect extends to the defendant who is a joint and several surety. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to acknowledge that there was the approval of debt by G

() On the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserts that the part of the judgment adding “I cannot assert its validity to the Defendant” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu114, Jan. 29, 191) to “I cannot assert its validity to the Defendant.”

As seen earlier, in full view of the fact that the purchaser of the instant sales contract was a G stock company and the Defendant signed and sealed a letter of performance that only pays unpaid sales price, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the process of concluding the instant sales contract and the preparation of the statement of performance of this case, and the purport thereof, etc., the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as having a duty to pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff as the direct party to the instant sales contract, beyond the joint and several liability for paying the purchase price under the instant sales contract.

arrow