(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.11 2018나2018625

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 2019.07.11 2018나2018625

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed.

2. The extension by this court.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The Plaintiff rendered a judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (1) filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 80,000,000 upon partial claim out of the sales price that the Defendant received in excess of the Defendant’s principal lawsuit and the amount equivalent to the installation cost of retaining wall that was not performed (hereinafter “request”) and the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 291,540,513 due to the termination of the relationship with the Plaintiff as a counterclaim.

The judgment of the court of first instance was rendered to dismiss both the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim.

B. The plaintiff and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiff added (1) the claim for the payment of settlement amount due to the termination of a trade relationship (hereinafter "preliminary claim") to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim. The defendant extended (2) the claim for the counterclaim to KRW 319,874,297.

On this issue, the plaintiff (1) dismissed the plaintiff's claim, (2) partly accepted the conjunctive claim, and (2) dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

C. As to the pronouncement of the judgment of remand, the Defendant appealed to the part against which the Defendant lost [1] (2) of the main lawsuit, and (2) of the counterclaim]. The Supreme Court reversed the part against the Defendant as to the main lawsuit and counterclaim in the judgment prior to remand and remanded.

(1) The object to be tried by this Court shall be limited to (2) the preliminary claim and (2) the counterclaim.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts are the same as the entry of the part concerning “1. Basic Facts” in Chapters 8 through 6, 13, except where each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 9 "D, E, F, and G" are "D, E, F, and G or less".

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.06.29 2016나50300

-서울고등법원 2015.08.18 2015나1187

-서울남부지방법원 2015. 1. 15. 선고 2014나9217(본소), 2014나9224(반소) 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.06.08 2016나2055750

-대전지방법원 2018.12.11 2018나3784