logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.17 2014가단46072
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2003, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Daegu District Court 2003Gaso41605 against the plaintiff.

The cause of the above lawsuit is to seek reimbursement from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant subrogated for the principal and interest of the Defendant’s loan to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Masung Life Insurance”) on November 10, 1998 in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on October 26, 1993.

On March 19, 2004, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 16,800,691 and damages for delay for KRW 16,78,360 among them” (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).

B. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal with the Daegu District Court 2012Na163 (Seoul District Court).

On October 10, 2012, the above appellate court rendered a judgment citing the Defendant’s claim to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 18,982,271 and delay damages for KRW 16,745,110,” including the claim extended and reduced in the appellate trial (hereinafter “instant appellate judgment”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2012Da99082.

However, the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal on January 24, 2013 on the ground that the grounds of appeal alleged by the defendant do not constitute the grounds of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial with the same court 2013 Jaena85 on the ground that the said Daegu District Court (2012Na163) was an original judgment subject to retrial.

On October 29, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for retrial (hereinafter “instant new judgment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is against the defendant's plaintiff for the following reasons.

arrow