(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.19 2018나5448 | 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) 청주지방법원 2018.10.19 2018나5448

건물명도 등

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. In accordance with the Preliminary Claim added by this Court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding "the judgment on the claim for preliminary lawsuit" to "2. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance," and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 as to the claim for preliminary lawsuit, the plaintiff shall be discharged from liability for loans to the defendant's He Association on September 3, 2014, and the amount of KRW 8,786,347 as interest on loans from around that time to August 2018, the plaintiff may be acknowledged to have completed the registration of the right to collateral security on August 29, 2014.

The sales contract of this case was invalidated on the ground of the defendant's lack of mental capacity.

Therefore, without any legal ground, the defendant obtained the profit of lending obligations and collateral security, and thereby the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the same amount.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 66,566,437 (i.e., KRW 8,786,437 million).

Furthermore, the Plaintiff also sought damages for delay, but the Plaintiff’s obligation to cancel the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration and the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment are concurrently performed (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da8490, Oct. 29, 2015). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff provided the duty to cancel ownership transfer registration. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for delay

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's main claim must be dismissed as it is without merit, and the defendant's main claim should be accepted as reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is legitimate, and all appeals filed against the plaintiff's primary principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

However, the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered on August 2014.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2015.10.29.선고 2015다8490 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.11.18 2016나2029362

-대법원 2007. 6. 15. 선고 2006다80322,80339 판결

-대전고등법원 2017.12.13 2015나14448

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.02 2014가단127681

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나41377