(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.12.19 2018나11839

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) 대전고등법원 2018.12.19 2018나11839

소유권이전등기

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Appointeds) and the designated parties are dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts is as stated in the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3th to 7th 6th 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the relevant statutes), and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, some of the following shall be written:

1. The third 13th 13th 13th son of the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be applied to “the Defendant and the designated persons (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”).

② The deletion of “(821)” on the fourth 3 side of the judgment of the court of the first instance and the fourth 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 60 shall be added as follows: “The instant general meeting was present without submitting a written resolution, and 212 of the 667 66th 36 persons present at the meeting.”

A person shall be appointed.

2. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought a judgment identical with the primary claim as an exercise of a sale claim under the premise that the Defendants did not consent to change the establishment of the Plaintiff’s association, and the Defendants failed to file an application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out, and sought a judgment identical with the preliminary claim, as an exercise of a sale claim under the premise that the Defendants were subject to cash settlement on August 17, 2016

The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim.

As the Defendants appealed against this, the subject of this Court’s trial is limited to the conjunctive claim.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The court's explanation on this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 74 to No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the decision of the court of first instance shall be 9, 12, 14, 19, and 8 below.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.11.01 2018나2023979

-서울고등법원 2018.10.25 2018나2002699

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2036974

-제주지방법원 2021.02.02 2020나10671

-대구고등법원 2018.11.08 2018나21860