(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.17 2017나2042195

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) 서울고등법원 2018.05.17 2017나2042195

정산금 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment, except for the alteration of “this court” as “Seoul Western District Court” on No. 47 (excluding the table) of the judgment of the court of first instance to “Seoul Western District Court.” Thus, this part is cited in accordance

2. Determination as to the claim for distribution of profit

A. The content of the Plaintiff’s assertion is substantially identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1) From 1994 to 2005, the Defendant omitted the import declaration of C or D and raised the total sum of KRW 20,550,000,000 as shown in the following table 2, and then divided the total amount into “voluntary dividends” according to the shareholding ratio with E and F. 2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,713,575,060,000 (=20,500,000,000 (20,550,000 x 18%) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s profit distribution ratio (18%) out of the above foreign loans under the instant contract, etc. 1 and 2.

[Attachment2] 1,200,000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 20021,50, 5000, 2000, 2000, 1995 1,650,000, 199999 2,00,000,000, 200,000, 2031,400, 20031,40,000, 19962,200,200,200, 2000, 200, 2000, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 2009, 2000, 2009, 2000, 2005, 2009

B. (1) Determination 1) As to the part from January 1, 1994 to September 1996, the fact that the Plaintiff received the profit distribution amount from the Defendant since 1994 is as seen earlier.

(2) However, even before October 21, 1996, the Plaintiff’s share was 18%, which seems to be consistent with the fact that there was a specific profit distribution agreement between the original and the Defendant, including the share ratio, during the above period. However, the grounds for the testimony by the witness G of the first instance court are ambiguous.

“...........” is merely the purport.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.03.15 2017가단213714

-대전고등법원(청주) 2016.09.13 2015나11787

-서울고등법원 2010. 11. 05. 선고 2010누20067 판결

-대법원 2010. 5. 27. 선고 2010두1743 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2008.2.1.선고 2001가합5314 판결