(영문) 대전고등법원 2017.01.18 2016나1180 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전고등법원 2017.01.18 2016나1180

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's selective claims added at the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part to be determined additionally is inserted in the text of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (3). Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion that the court considers additionally

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 170,539,000 for damages due to the tort by deception, on the ground that, without notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff reported the transaction of real estate and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, the Plaintiff used the business contract only for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the bank, and thereby would not cause any damage to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 170,539,00 for damages due to the tort by deception.

The judgment of the court of first instance, 3-C among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

In light of the evidence and circumstances described in paragraph, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone agreed that the Defendant would not report the transaction of real estate between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the transaction amount of the purchase price of the instant contract.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff violated the obligation to notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the purchase price is recorded as the transaction amount under the instant business contract by reporting the transaction of real estate under the instant business contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the establishment of tort due to the defendant's deception, is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the claim for the agreed amount.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2014.06.19 2011가합9287

-울산지방법원 2014.05.23 2013가단26110

-춘천지방법원 2019.08.21 2018나54412

-서울고등법원 2018.01.30 2017누56942

-서울고등법원 2017.05.16 2016누82470