(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나50655

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) 인천지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나50655

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The underlying facts and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Party’s assertion,” and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish the conclusion of the instant contract, to ensure that there is a need for the objective agreement of several conflicting declarations between the parties and an objective agreement, all the matters indicated in the parties’ declaration of intent must be the same. On the other hand, even if the content of the instant contract is not “important” and the objective element of the instant contract, when the parties expressed their intent to be the requirements for the formation of the contract with significant significance, the contract is lawful and effective only when the agreement is reached.

In addition, an offer, which is a legal requirement for the formation of a contract, must be specific and conclusive that the contract is concluded immediately if the offer accepts the offer. Therefore, it is necessary to include matters to the extent that the contents of the contract can be determined.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059 Decided April 11, 2003). According to the evidence No. 6, G, which was the head of the Defendant’s fishing village fraternity at the time, sent his account number to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2015, and the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 15 million to the said account on the same day is as seen earlier.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. In light of the above facts, the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the contract of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant contract is premised on the conclusion of the instant contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 4. 11. 선고 2001다53059 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.08.23 2017나65722

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.31 2015가단220811

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.09.16 2014가단34557

-울산지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나10309

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.12.22 2020나305