(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2017나362 | 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) 서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2017나362

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are used in part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. In addition to the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to "paragraph 3", the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. As to the defendant's assertion that "a judgment was pronounced in the purport (Seoul Southern District Court 2015 Gohap101369)" of No. 20-21 of the judgment of the court of the first instance is confirmed together with the purport, and even if the authentication was prepared by the commission of the authorized representative, the plaintiff's act of this case was ratified by the commission of the authorized representative, so the declaration of consent of execution on the authentication is an act of litigation by the deed prepared by the method of sexual rule as a single declaration of intent of the debtor against the joint law office or notary public, and the declaration of ratification of execution recognition on the authentication of the authentication among the defective notarial deeds should be done by the notary public who prepared the authentication in question must be notarized by the method of a notarized declaration of intention against the joint law office or notary public, even though there is no ratification without such method that the debtor bears the obligation under the substantive law, the declaration of consent of execution cannot be made valid by the defendant as to the notarial deed as 2006Da281635, Mar. 24, 2006).

(b) Part 19 of the decision of the court of first instance stating that “the installment repayment as provided in Article 2 can be seen.”

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 3. 24. 선고 2006다2803 판결

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나10142

-서울고등법원 2017.07.07 2017나2016080

-서울고등법원 2015.08.13 2014나2044220

-대법원 1991. 4. 26. 선고 90다20473 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.10.17 2017나2002975