logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2014나2046110
제3자이의
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 reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) the “right to claim a withdrawal” in the fifth page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written as “right to claim a withdrawal”; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further determination as follows, shall be cited as they are in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s agreement on April 4, 201 between the Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was cancelled or cancelled and became null and void.

Even if the agreement of this case remains valid separately from the agreement of this case, so the dividend of this case should be distributed to the plaintiff who is the transferee of each claim according to the judgment of this case and the mediation protocol, and therefore, the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, which is the subject of compulsory execution requested by the defendants, shall also belong to the plaintiff.

The so-called "a claim transfer contract" with the character as an act of property right or an act of disposal, and "a claim transfer obligation contract" with the nature as an act of property transfer or an act of property transfer, which is a kind of an act of property transfer, is an independent act that must be distinguished in its legal understanding.

However, in cases where, after a creditor transferred a claim pursuant to a transfer obligation contract, the validity of the above contract that became the cause of the transfer becomes extinct due to the cancellation or cancellation thereof, the claim that was transferred due to the performance of the above contract is naturally returned to the transferor in terms of its original condition without the above contract. However, it should be deemed that the transferee bears the obligation to notify the obligor of the fact that the transferee bears the duty to restore the transferor due

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da47728, Mar. 24, 1995; 2010Da100711, Mar. 24, 2011). In this case, D’s implementation of the instant agreement, which constitutes a transfer obligation agreement, to the Plaintiff.

arrow