(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나53590

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) 창원지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나53590

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment concerning the basic facts and the primary claim are as follows: (a) the “sale price” of the first instance judgment No. 2, 8, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4 and 3 shall be as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except that the “sale price” of the second instance judgment is “D”; and (b) the “I” of the fourth 4, 3 shall be as “K”, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of the claim has a claim of KRW 35 million against D for the remainder of the purchase and sale of the land of this case and KRW 20 million for the penalty due to delay in payment of the remainder of the obligation. D concluded the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant in excess of the obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act, and D’s intent to commit suicide is presumed. Therefore, the instant mortgage contract should be revoked within the limit of KRW 55 million, and the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the amount of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff out of the amount of the remainder of the claim against the Defendant to its original state. 2) Since D for the purchase of the land of KRW 240 million from the Plaintiff around October 24, 2013 to pay KRW 50 million for the remainder of the purchase and sale of the land of this case to the Plaintiff, the remainder of KRW 50 million for the remainder of the purchase and sale of the land of this case, which was 30 million prior to the occurrence of the contract.

Therefore, the above remaining claims are preserved claims of obligee's right of revocation.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the claim for penalty of KRW 20 million is also a preserved claim. However, the following circumstances, which may be recognized according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 and 9, i.e., the penalty of KRW 1,00,000, is an estimate of the amount of damages in preparation for delay or nonperformance of the payment of the balance

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가단8516

-울산지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나13933

-서울고등법원 2016.04.05 2015나14718

-수원고등법원 2020.09.17 2019나21923

-대전지방법원 2018.06.07 2016가단226056