(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.24 2017나2035340

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 2017.11.24 2017나2035340

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The basic facts;

2. The reasoning for this part of the court’s judgment on the grounds for objection is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The main point of the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff complained against the circumstances faced with the de-listing crisis, and that the Plaintiff invested KRW 500 million in the Defendant’s energy emitting range, a subsidiary company, and cancelled the establishment of a pledge on KRW 120,00 of the Plaintiff’s shares owned by D and transferred them to the Defendant without any conditions.

Accordingly, the Defendant agreed to exempt the Plaintiff from the portion of the Plaintiff’s obligations of the instant loans, excluding KRW 184,458,767, under the terms of suspension of the Plaintiff’s investment agreement and D’s share transfer agreement, or under the terms of rescission of its nonperformance, and prepared the instant confirmation document.

However, since the above investment agreement has not been implemented and the share transfer agreement is not possible by the pledgee's exercise of rights, the agreement was null and void in accordance with the letter of confirmation of this case.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant at the first instance and the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the agreement for debt exemption under the instant confirmation is a conditional agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be recognized on a different premise.

① As seen earlier, the instant confirmation does not state the content of the conditional agreement as alleged by the Defendant.

It is difficult to understand that the content of such an agreement was not written in the instant confirmation even though the agreement was concluded with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant.

Rather, this is the same.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.02 2018가단5246814

-서울고등법원 2019.06.05 2018나2070357

-인천지방법원 2019.09.18 2019나51034

-전주지방법원 2015.07.15 2014가단29065

-서울고등법원 2016.05.26 2015나2067992