(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019나21752

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019나21752

채권자대위청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following "the part amended by 2.2". Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The 7th to 17th day of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the following:

From July 1, 201, 201, the period between the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 7 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, “D,” and the period between E and E for which the designated person C engaged in an advertising agency business with the trade name of “D:

8. As of September 1, 2011 to December 31 of the same year, after the non-party company was established, the non-party company entered into a contract with the non-party company to vicariously run the advertising agency business run by the designated party C by setting the period from September 1, 201 to December 31 of the same year to which the non-party company formed the contract to vicariously run the advertising agency business operated by the designated party C. Accordingly, most of the sponsors, who entered into the advertising contract with the non-party company, entered into an advertising contract with the non-party company, and the designated party C entered into an advertising contract with the non-party company to transfer the business of the non-party company in a comprehensive manner at KRW 300 million (Evidence 2). In light of the above, it is deemed that the non-party company's 200 million won transferred from the designated party C to the non-party company in return for the transfer of business.

In light of these circumstances, only the evidence and assertion submitted by the Plaintiff was made by Defendant B in the process of the establishment of the non-party company.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the above defendant actually managed the deposit account in the name of the designated person C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Appointor C.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.12.24 2015가합53546

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가단5228611

-광주고등법원 2016.06.24 2016나10369

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.08 2013가단103405

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.08 2017가단1043