logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2016나2083755
구상금 등
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

In the first instance court, the plaintiff sought reimbursement and return of unjust enrichment against the defendant. The first instance court accepted the claim for reimbursement and dismissed the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

Accordingly, the defendant only appealed against the cited portion of the claim for indemnity, which is subject to the judgment of this court, is limited to the above cited portion of the claim for indemnity.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for a modification or supplement of part of the grounds of the first instance judgment as set forth in paragraph (3) below, and an addition of judgment as to the party's argument in the trial, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 4

The supplement of the supplement to the amendment and the supplement to the determination on the additional assertion shall be added to the following "including each number" in the first sentence of the first instance judgment of theO No. 9 of the part concerning the supplement to the amendment.

C. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in the Evidence Nos. 12 and 29 of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Ha Government District Court against Ha Government District Court to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of H, for which the Plaintiff’s share was paid out of each of the instant real estate, and delegated the litigation to Ha Law Firm O on March 4, 2016. G transferred KRW 1,500,000 to Professor Law Firm O on March 3, 2016, which is the preceding day, and G transferred KRW 30,000 to P, who is an employee of the Plaintiff’s agent on March 26, 2015.

O Change into “the fact that all payments have been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract” in the second sentence of the first instance judgment to “the fact that all payments have been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, and there is no evidence that even some of the sales proceeds have been returned from G.”

O The 6th sentence of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, "Influence," followed by "the plaintiff."

arrow