(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.04 2016나2001913

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 2016.11.04 2016나2001913

투자금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, such as the part of Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3), and as such, the aforementioned reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts of scraping;

(a) 4 8 pages 1 to 3, 33, and 34, the following shall add “B Nos. 36, 37”:

B. On the five pages 10,11, "The registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant is null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name" shall be stated as " even if the title trust agreement between the union and the defendants is null and void".

C. The 6th 8th 9th 8th 9th 6th 8th 9th "the fact that the Plaintiff registered and held the name of the business operator of the cafeteria within the instant funeral hall in the name of the Plaintiff’s father H from March 11, 2008 to November 20, 2010, and that the value-added tax on the sales of the said cafeteria reported during the same period reaches 496,66,942 won. Thus, the Plaintiff appears to have continuously inspected the details of the revenue and expenditure while directly or indirectly participating in the operation of the instant funeral hall, and further, according to the respective statements in subparagraphs 4 through 6,9, and the testimony and overall purport of the testimony and arguments of the witness of the first instance trial D, the Plaintiff appears to have participated in the settlement process).

According to Section 7, Section 1 and Section 2, “A” was written in Section 3-5 of the evidence No. 33, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff entered in the place in which the said sales contract was entered, and the witness D of the first instance trial sold the instant funeral hall on October 1, 2012 and the financial institution loans from the sales price.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-부동산 실권리자명의 등기에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나110244

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.22 2017나60077

-서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2016나2071028

-서울남부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017나60893

-서울고등법원 2014.01.17 2013누17598