(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나32200

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나32200

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows: (a) the evidence No. 20 of the judgment of first instance, which stated that “No. 6” of the third party No. 20, is dismissed as “Evidence No. 6 to No. 8”; and (b) the part additionally claimed in the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment, except for the addition of “a judgment on a new assertion” as to the part additionally claimed in the court of

2. Determination on new arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the total amount of damages of KRW 52,550,000, since the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, a member of the association, committed an unlawful act that reduces the partnership property by deceiving the academic background, divulging the students or suspending the course of study despite the Defendant’s obligation to protect the partnership’s property as a member of the association agreement.

The statement of evidence Nos. 4, 20, 22, and 23 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the contract of this case as the association agreement. The plaintiff's above assertion based on this premise is without merit, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

B. On March 6, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant contract was only the right to refund the amount corresponding to the Defendant’s share out of the partnership property as of March 6, 2016, which was withdrawn by the Defendant as the association agreement, and that there was no right to refund the investment amount itself. However, as seen earlier, the instant contract is insufficient to be recognized as the association agreement, the said assertion is without merit. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 52,550,00 for the Defendant’s damage claim against the Defendant, and KRW 5,104,314 for the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the Defendant’s excessive profit, set off the amount of KRW 5,104,31

As seen earlier, the claim for damages or the claim for return of unjust enrichment claimed by the Plaintiff is recognized.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.11.07 2019나57985

-대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2019다207851 판결

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.02.13 2016가합201506

-서울동부지방법원 2020.06.03 2019나29855

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.04.28 2014가단26865