(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.21 2016나2055941

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 2017.04.21 2016나2055941

매매대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The basic facts;

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The reasoning for this part of the court’s determination on the cause of a claim is as follows: (a) to the third to the third to the third to the third to the fourth to the fourth; and (b) to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the 9th to the 10th to the 13th to the 10th to the 13th to the 10th to the 13th to the 1

The parties exchanging KRW 498,750,500 shall not seek settlement or unjust enrichment against the Defendant, in that they are “F (Transferee) and D (Transferee)” other than the Plaintiff and the Defendant. This is the same in light of the following circumstances:

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion or defense 1) The argument that “the Plaintiff agreed to pay the interest rate on a certain period of time” is that the reasoning for this part is as stated in this part from the 1st to the 9th order of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the sales price pursuant to the instant sales contract at the same time as the Plaintiff’s test was cancelled the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring land, and at the same time the Defendant is liable to pay the sales price pursuant to the instant sales contract. (B) Even if the obligation owed by the parties to the relevant legal doctrine is not an obligation with proper consideration in the bilateral contract, the parties’ defense of simultaneous performance can be acknowledged in cases where it is deemed as a quid pro quoous meaning pursuant to the terms

Supreme Court Decision 201 June 2007

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.09.28 2015나2050840

-서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2017나2044351

-서울고등법원 2018.05.11 2017나2049981

-대전지방법원 2020.08.18 2020나103229

-서울고등법원 2020.10.23 2019나2051735