(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.06.19 2019나1066 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2020.06.19 2019나1066

손해배상 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants constitutes a preliminary co-litigation under Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The first instance court dismissed the claim against the primary defendant B and accepted the claim against the primary defendant C, and the plaintiff filed an appeal only against the primary defendant B.

According to the provisions of Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 67(1) and (2) and 70(2) of the same Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 70(1) of the same Act and Article 67(1) and (2) of the same Act, all of the co-litigants shall be decided in the case of preliminary co-litigation, and all of the co-litigants shall be effective only for the benefit of all the co-litigants. The litigation of one of the co-litigants against one of the co-litigants shall be effective for all the co-litigants. Thus, when an appeal is filed against any of the co-litigants and any of the co-litigants, the part of the claims against the other co-litigants shall also be transferred to the appellate court and subject to the appellate trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17765, Mar. 27, 2008). Therefore, even if the

However, the preliminary defendant C is in the position of "party to the appellate trial" who did not appeal without filing an appeal.

2. The Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if all evidence submitted in the court of first instance

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the fact that “No. 237582” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “No. 237682,” and therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

3. The plaintiff's main text is the conclusion.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제70조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 3. 27. 선고 2006두17765 판결

유사 판례

-수원고등법원 2019.10.17 2019나11575

-의정부지방법원 2020.08.20 2020나201164

-서울고등법원 2018.10.11 2018나2008529

-서울고등법원 2021.04.23 2020누55420

-광주지방법원 2021.04.16 2020나63572