logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.11.22 2019나2011669
부당이득반환 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim extended by the Plaintiff in this court, is modified as follows.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part to reflect the progress of the relevant lawsuit after the closing of argument in the court of first instance among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part to clarify its meaning, are to be stated as follows; (b) the court of first instance particularly emphasized or newly raised by the defendant as the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal; and (c) the court of first instance added a judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff is particularly emphasized as the grounds for appeal in the following paragraph (3). In addition, the court of first instance accepted some of the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and corrected the relevant part among the grounds for appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance according to the result of the review by the court of first instance, and the relevant part among the judgment of the

A. 6) (6) and (3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, instead of deleting the part of the “indemys theory” and the part of the “indemys theory” of the judgment of the court of first instance from 12 to 8 following, the review result of the court of first instance is summarized as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the following paragraph 4 (4) (Provided, That the part concerning the claim for damages excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is excluded, and the part which is used by reflecting the progress of the relevant litigation after the closure of the first instance

A. Of the judgment of the first instance, 5-3-5 of the fifth to 3-5 of the 5th judgment “The final judgment was finalized around that time, and R’s claim of KRW 112,044,180 for the unpaid construction cost claimed against the Plaintiff (the Jeju District Court 2018Gadan342) was pending at that time (However, the final judgment of the Jeju District Court 2015Kadan16353 and 2018Gadan342 was stated in the following table).”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part below 15 to 16353 N Co., Ltd. 127,848,00 and its amount shall be 6% per annum from October 14, 2015 to July 10, 2017, and all from the following day to the date of full payment.

arrow