logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2019.06.27 2018나25381
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 1/2 of the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table to Defendant C is relevant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Provided, That the part on the claim for revocation of a fraudulent act with respect to 1/2 shares out of the real estate stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table of Real Estate List 2 against Defendant C is excluded) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. As follows, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written or added “from 20 to 4 pages 1 to 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance,” was used as follows, and the 4th 2 to 3th 2 of the judgment, “this court has rendered a significant fact” in the column for recognition. A judgment of conviction (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) was rendered, and that judgment became final and conclusive on June 13, 2019.

[No evidence exists" in the first instance judgment of the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da2790, 6186, Daegu District Court Decision 2018No146, Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1090]. The following is added. According to the evidence 2-2 of the first instance judgment, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant B in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), including embezzlement of KRW 305,44,360, Jun. 30, 2016, which included the above embezzlement of KRW 305,44,360, and embezzlement of KRW 305,44,360, which was found guilty, the court below's Daegu District Court Decision 2018No146, the Supreme Court Decision 2018Do11090). The court below's portion of the judgment of the first instance judgment is without merit as to the scope of the amount of joint security interest or the amount of compensation under Article 8 (3).

arrow