(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.02.07 2018나2024026

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 2020.02.07 2018나2024026

사해행위취소

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs is modified as follows. A.

As between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs,

Reasons

1. From the first instance court to the extent of adjudication, the Plaintiffs sought the revocation of the promise for payment in kind as of September 2, 2013 and the contract for payment in kind as of May 9, 2014, which was concluded between the Defendant and J Co., Ltd. on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 3, and the revocation of the promise for payment in kind as of May 2, 2014. The first instance court partially accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for the revocation of payment in kind and restoration to original state as of September 2, 2013 regarding the real estate listed in

As to this, Plaintiff B and E filed an appeal only against the cancellation of the promise for payment in kind and the losing part of the claim for restitution on September 2, 2013 regarding the real estate listed in the attached Table 3 list, and the Defendant filed an appeal against the cited part of the Plaintiffs’ claim. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the Plaintiff B, E and the Defendant’s appeal among the part of the claim for cancellation of the promise for payment in kind and restitution on September 2, 2013 regarding the

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: “The Government District Court Decision 2014Kahap1136, May 9, 2015, 2015” No. 2014Kahap136, May 9, 2014, i.e., the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 4, 1 to 6, 7). Therefore, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment on this issue is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (Articles 7, 1, 11, and 19) except that the defendant's "the defendant" is "the defendant" as "the defendant," and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. As Plaintiff B had worked as an employee of Nonparty Company from March 2, 2012, Plaintiff B had the right to receive wages from Nonparty Company.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.01 2014나14411

-서울고등법원 2020.02.07 2018나2069326

-부산고등법원(창원) 2020.11.19 2020나12168

-서울동부지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가합100565

-서울고등법원 2019.01.18 2018나2016223