(영문) 수원고등법원 2021.03.25 2020나16248

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) 수원고등법원 2021.03.25 2020나16248

매매대금

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 3th 8th h eth 8th eth eth eth 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 6.

Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, " alone with a transaction agreement of 15 pages 3, 8, 12, 13, 23 through 26, and Eul's evidence of No. 11, " alone," shall be deemed as "the transaction agreement and the written evidence of No. 3, 8, 12, 13, 23 through 26."

The following shall be added to the third 16 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 13 (the Plaintiff cited evidence No. 12, but it appears to be a clerical error in the evidence No. 13) was a disposition regarding the sales contract of the Plaintiff’s assertion, but the document’s legal act in the form of the disposition was conducted by the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da2986, May 30, 1997). Thus, the Plaintiff did not transfer after the preparation of the sales contract.

the balance under section A(No. 3) is subrogated to repay the balance.

A document(Evidence No. 8) and a complaint for any other case containing the Defendant’s assertion (Evidence No. 13) cannot be deemed to constitute a disposition document.

The following shall be added to the fourth 12 pages of the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant asserted that the contract of this case was concluded as a collateral for the above claim in several times during the pleadings in the first instance trial. However, it is difficult to view it as an attempt to settle the defendant's loan to the plaintiff, and it does not seem to be inconsistent with the defendant's argument denying the trade of this case.

4) The Plaintiff is based on the trust that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate.

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 5. 30. 선고 97다2986 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.10.30 2018나110422

-부산지방법원 2019.07.26 2018나58745

-수원지방법원 2020.09.24 2019나74966

-창원지방법원 2017.05.31 2015나8456

-서울고등법원 2016.11.24 2016누49749