(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.03.29 2017재가단57

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.03.29 2017재가단57

부당이득금

Text

1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking return of the amount calculated by deducting some of the proceeds already received from the Defendant from the sale price, claiming the invalidation or cancellation of the sale contract for real estate listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the lower court’s 2015da23867, which was the subject of quasi-reconciliation. During the proceeding of the lawsuit, this court rendered a decision of recommending settlement (hereinafter “decision of recommending settlement of this case”) on May 16, 2017, and the fact that the said decision became final and conclusive on June 3, 2017 is apparent in the record.

1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 67,297,210 to the Plaintiff by June 20, 2017. If the Defendant fails to pay the said money by the said date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Upon receiving the above money from the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Defendant.

3. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims against the defendant.

4. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

2. Whether the quasi-examination suit of this case is legitimate

A. The defendant's assertion did not raise an objection with the knowledge that the amount under Paragraph (1) of the decision to recommend reconciliation of this case was obtained by deducting the sales agency commission and the revenue from the sales price. Since there was a mistake in calculation last, there was a ground for retrial falling under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment) provides for a presumption of defects that may arise in relation to the entry of the reasons for a final judgment among the grounds for a retrial on the final judgment, and there is no room to constitute a decision of recommending reconciliation that does not separately state the reasons for a separate judgment, unlike the written judgment

Supreme Court Decision 206. Feb. 2, 2006

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.23 2014재가합22

-의정부지방법원 2019.12.26 2019재가단10024

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.04.10 2014재가합14

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.28 2019재가단628

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2017재가합5047