logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.17 2017나2019195
소유권말소등기
Text

1. An appeal against the Plaintiff A’s Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association, Inc. is filed.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “the cause” in the part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the cause”; and (b) the Plaintiff in the part 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “Defendant Q and R” in the part 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “Defendant Q and Q”; and (c) the addition of “ex officio decision on the appeal against the Plaintiff Union on February 1, 200 and additional decision on the Plaintiff Union and Defendant Q as to the assertion of the Plaintiff Union on March 3, 200” to “the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance

The appeal against the plaintiff union is legitimate on the date of the defendant's complaint, ex officio decision on the appeal against the plaintiff union on the date of the plaintiff's complaint.

An appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and therefore an appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her cannot be permitted, and in principle, whether the judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant shall be determined based on the order of the judgment based on the standard at the time of the appeal. Therefore, an appeal against the judgment in favor of the entire winning case is unlawful as there is no benefit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235, Jul. 13, 2007). It is obvious to this court that the claim against the Plaintiff’s Union on the Defendant’s Report Round was all dismissed at the first instance court. The appeal against the Plaintiff’s Union on the date of the Plaintiff’s Report Round, which has already won the whole winning case, is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

Plaintiff

Each of the instant commercial buildings was included in the management and disposal plan, etc. since 1991, and its construction was completed around January 24, 2004, and the registration was made around January 24, 2004. Thus, each of the instant commercial buildings thereafter.

arrow