(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.05 2015재나663

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 2016.04.05 2015재나663

추심금

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant (the plaintiff and the selected party).

Reasons

1. The following facts in the final judgment subject to review of this case and the acceptance of a lawsuit are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court 2013Kahap23566 with respect to the collection amount of KRW 210,111,198 and the above amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment. On July 10, 2014, the court rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay KRW 155,134,750 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from November 14, 2013 to July 10, 2014, and each amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Accordingly, the deceased C and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court No. 2014Na2026680, and the above court rendered on January 30, 2015, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s deceased C with the amount of KRW 87,434,750 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from November 14, 2013 to January 30, 2015, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the judgment subject to review”).

C. The net C filed a final appeal against it, but on June 11, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered a final judgment dismissing the appeal without a trial (2015Da208658), which became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, the network C died on May 2, 2015, and the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) K, Appointer M, N, and P, who is his spouse L and children, took over the legal proceedings.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The meaning of the terms used by the Defendant’s assertion and construction (hereinafter the meaning of the terms used in the judgment subject to a retrial is the same as that of the judgment subject to a retrial) failed to complete the new construction of the instant building. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim amount of construction cost, liquidated damages, value-added tax, and net C directly

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.09.10 2015재나373

-광주지방법원목포지원 2016.04.20 2015재가단10

-부산지방법원 2015.11.25 2015재나33

-광주고등법원 2020.04.09 2020재나15

-서울동부지방법원 2018.02.09 2017재나18