logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016재나72
대여금
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial on the claim for the return of loan, etc. as the Jung-gu District Court Decision 2013Ga34266, and the said court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 52,00,000 and its delay damages to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 48,000,000 to the Defendant and its delay damages.

B. The Defendant appealed as the District Court 2015Na9463, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on February 4, 2016.

C. The Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da13994, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the final appeal on May 27, 2016, which became final and conclusive.

2. In the instant judgment subject to a retrial by the Defendant, there are grounds for retrial falling under “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act for the following reasons. A.

Although a special contract between the Defendant and B (hereinafter “instant transfer/acquisition contract”) contains a statement to the effect that the Defendant would pay KRW 48,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 48,000,000 to the Plaintiff solely based on the above statement was not satisfied, and even though the Defendant asserted this, the judgment subject to a retrial had a duty to pay KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff, without omitting a specific judgment thereon.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff was extinguished due to changes in circumstances, but the judgment subject to a retrial did not properly determine the Defendant’s assertion by citing the part of the judgment of the first instance court.

C. The defendant.

arrow