(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.13 2016나2015127

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) 서울고등법원 2017.01.13 2016나2015127

주주대표소송

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the corresponding part as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 3rd judgment of the first instance court is "in the intentional non-compliance with the supervision and supervision of the operation of the company" in the 16 and 17th judgment. It is not proper management and supervision of the operation of the company, but is not subject to supervision and supervision of the operation of the company."

B. On the fourth 13-15th 15th 15th 15th 15th 15th 4th 15th 1st 4th 4th 4th 15th 2003, “In light of the following facts and circumstances that are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensive of the whole purport of the pleadings,” “The above evidence and evidence Nos. 9, 10th 10, and Nos. 11 through 7th 7th 4th 15th 4th 4th 15th 4th 15th 4th 15th 4th 100

C. Article 15 of the first instance judgment No. 15 of the fourth 15 of the first instance court's judgment " alone is the statement of evidence No. 10 of the first instance court's judgment," with "Evidence submitted or quoted by the plaintiff up to the first instance court, such as the statement of evidence No. 3, 6, 8 through 11, and 13 of the evidence

The fourth 17th of the judgment of the first instance court stated, “A person who implied, neglected, or neglected management and supervision of H’s embezzlement” as “A person who does not properly manage the Gu’s revenues or expenditure, but has implied, neglected, or neglected management and supervision.”

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and all appeals against the Defendants by the Plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.01.13 2016나1964

-대구지방법원 2018.10.18 2018나306124

-서울고등법원 2015.07.17 2014나2038911

-대구고등법원 2017.01.06 2016누5496

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2017.03.16 2016나10532