(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나41000

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나41000

조정사항이행

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant: USD 16,699.01 on December 29, 2012 to the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the part “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Determination on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits” under the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following matters:

However, "Plaintiff C" shall be raised to "Plaintiff B" on the 5th day above the second written judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The allegations by the parties, ① as agreed upon by the plaintiffs and the defendant under Paragraph (2) of the mediation clause of the related case, the defendant shall pay 25% of the medical expenses either finalized until May 31, 2012 or imposed by the hospital of this case to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay US$ 16,699.01 and its delay damages to the plaintiffs.

② Although the Defendant did not have a preliminary obligation to pay the said money directly to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant asserts that the instant hospital is obligated to pay the said money by December 31, 2012 pursuant to the pertinent case’s mediation clause (2) and that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money for delay if not performed.

In this regard, the mediation clause of the related case stipulates that the plaintiffs and the defendant should pay damages for delay if either the plaintiffs and the defendant fail to comply with the ratio of the burden of the medical expenses of the hospital of this case.

Therefore, it is not possible for the plaintiffs to seek payment against the defendant without the plaintiffs' payment of their own share.

B. We first examine the plaintiffs' primary argument.

The part 1 of the mediation clause 2 of the related case is that "75% of the amount of debt for the determined remaining medical expenses shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and 25% shall be borne by the defendant, respectively," and it does not specify the defendant's obligation to pay directly.

However, this is against the hospital of this case as a whole by the plaintiffs until now.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.15 2019나17880

-인천지방법원 2019.06.27 2018나62051

-서울남부지방법원 2021.02.03 2020가단269736

-부산고등법원 2017.04.27 2016나2284

-청주지방법원제천지원 2016.10.19 2016가단741