(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나15181

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나15181

계약금반환 및 지체상금등 청구의 소

Text

1. Of the parts relating to the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts and scopes shall be exceeded:

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. In the first instance trial on the scope of this Court, the Plaintiff claimed the main claim for restitution due to the rescission of the contract, ② compensatory damages due to the nonperformance, ③ compensatory damages due to the nonperformance, ③ in the first instance, the Plaintiff sought the total sum of the claim, ② in the first instance, and ③ in the first instance, the Defendant claimed the total sum of the claim(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(

The court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim (1), (2) the claim, (3) the claim, and (4) the defendant's counterclaim. In this regard, only the defendant appealed on the part against which he lost.

Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to ①, ③ the subject of the judgment and the counterclaim of the defendant.

2. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the portion of the “44 items” of the 5th 10th 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as “42 items”

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the assertion that the Defendant particularly emphasized or added in the trial, the court’s determination on the claim of the principal lawsuit is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

8 The following shall be added to the 15th page:

"The actual substance of the contract of this case does not include the content of transferring the ownership of ASP services program, and the defendant asserts that the right to use the ASP program should be granted to the plaintiff in accordance with the contract of this case so that the plaintiff can engage in the ASP business.

However, the actual contents of the evidence and all the arguments mentioned above are the purport of all the arguments.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.30 2019나15181

-대구고등법원 2016.05.26 2015나22206

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나26046

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나27186

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.11 2015나3762