(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나2144 | 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) 전주지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나2144

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 93,349,315 won against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the facts is as follows: “A total of KRW 37,500,000,000” in the third 4 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “total of KRW 37,50,00,” and “A. The defendant retired from D Co., Ltd. on June 30, 2016” following the fifth 6’s “based grounds for recognition” is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “B evidence 6, and inquiry inquiry inquiry reply to D Co., Ltd.” to “based grounds for recognition.” As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. Since the Defendant did not pay the Defendant’s loans of KRW 100,000,00 and interest thereon after the conclusion of the acquisition agreement of this case, the Defendant’s transfer agreement of this case is cancelled through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100,000,000 as the return or reinstatement of the loan and the interest accrued thereon amounting to KRW 20,50,000.

B. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of the acquisition price of KRW 200,000 and damages for delay after the retirement date, as the Plaintiff agreed to pay the acquisition price upon retirement of the Plaintiff under the instant acquisition agreement, which causes a counterclaim.

3. The judgment and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the cancellation of the acquisition agreement of this case and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the acquisition agreement of this case was lawfully rescinded as the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, which expressed the intent of cancellation due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, and therefore, the Defendant’s counterclaim claiming the acquisition price to the Plaintiff on the premise that the acquisition agreement of this case remains effective, is without merit.

1. The acquisition agreement of this case is about KRW 100,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원고등법원 2020.11.05 2019나21817

-서울고등법원 2016.06.17 2015나2030877

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.10.06 2016가단103688

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.01 2015나56333

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.19 2018가합551266