(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2017나25322

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) 대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2017나25322

소유권이전등기말소청구 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2. Appeal;

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is that of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment as to the instant case, since it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding or adding the following matters. Thus, it is citing this as is in accordance

2. The 7th page "A 1 to 12" of the 7th page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written by inserting "A 1 to 14".

The 11th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be adopted by the resolution of the board of directors of November 14, 2014 "the resolution of the board of directors of November 14, 2014".

The 11th written judgment of the first instance court to 14th parallels of the 11th parallels of the 11st parallels of the 11st parallels of the 11st parallels are as follows.

According to the evidence No. 1 of "B" (the minutes of the F Council meeting on June 11, 2015, and four pages (the minutes of the meeting of the plaintiff who attended the board of directors on the day and leaves the meeting, but the representative director G, directors S, and auditors have no signature and seal on the minutes)", the chairman of the F Council shall ask the plaintiff on any day before the board of directors is held on June 11, 2015, "whether the existing board of directors on the pro rata property portion shall not be withdrawn if the remaining amount of the R is not paid." The plaintiff shall also be deemed to have passed a resolution if the contract is terminated, and it shall be deemed that the existing board of directors on the pro rata property portion becomes null and void if there is no remaining amount of the R's payment. It shall also be supported by the fact that there is no further reason for the plaintiff's re-election next to the above paragraph in the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, on June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s respective loans of KRW 281,647,970 to the Plaintiff’s F, as well as the Plaintiff’s respective loans of KRW 281,647,970 to the Daegu District Court Panel Division No. 20184, Jun. 24, 2010 to the conciliation protocol of the case No. 40, hereinafter referred to as “

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2017나25346

-서울고등법원 2019.03.28 2017나2060544

-서울고등법원 2018.12.06 2017나2048667

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2020.01.15 2019나50524