logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.12 2015나5316
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part concerning "the allegations of the parties and the judgment of the parties in Section 2-b. c." of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the part concerning the defendants in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts after repair (Article 2-2(b) and (c) and judgment of the parties);

B. 1) The parties' assertion 1) The representative director of Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant G, who issued the instant golf membership in the name of the Plaintiff’s instant golf membership, did not pay the actual membership fee, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff as if the Plaintiff was a legitimate golf membership with little value in collateral, thereby causing damage to the amount equivalent to the amount of the unpaid golf loan to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendants’ instant golf membership membership cannot be deemed to have no value of collateral on the grounds that the membership fee was not paid properly, and even if it was non-security-value, Defendant C and D provided golf membership as collateral under the direction of J, etc., the representative director of the IF company, and Defendant G was merely a formal representative director, and Defendant E was not liable for damages due to the fact that Defendant E’s actual representative director was not in compliance with the direction of K.

C. In order to establish tort liability against the Defendants, “The fact that the Plaintiff was granted a security loan by deceiving the Plaintiff’s side as if the Plaintiff was a golf membership membership fee,” and further, the Defendant’s loan of this case was by deception as to the security value.

arrow