(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.07 2016나2006772

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 2016.10.07 2016나2006772

구상금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, or the defendant's new or repeated arguments in the trial are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Defendant Company A" written in Part III of the decision of the court of first instance shall be used as "Codefendant A corporation of the first instance", and all "Defendant Company A" written thereafter shall be added to "A".

Defendant B as stated in the third sentence 10 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be used as “Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial”, and all of “Defendant B” mentioned thereafter shall be used as “B”.

The "Defendant C" written after the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be applied to all "Defendant C".

The 5th decision of the first instance court "2. Determination on the claim for indemnity" in Part 4 of the 5th decision of the first instance court shall be made "2. Establishment of preserved claims".

Defendant H's "Defendant H" in the 6th and 17th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be applied to "Defendant".

This Court shall be referred to as the "court of the first instance" in the 7th sentence of the court of the first instance.

In addition, the defendant, upon the request of B on August 28, 2006, set the amount of KRW 300 million to A at a fixed rate of 1% per month of interest and entered into a mortgage contract in order to secure the principal and interest of the loan since he did not pay interest at the end of 2013 while he was making a loan of KRW 900 million to A, and received interest for the amount of KRW 300 million from the time of multiple times, he did not know that the above mortgage contract was detrimental to other creditors, and therefore he did not know that he was a bona fide beneficiary.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary shall be responsible for it.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.04.12 2017나2066948

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2036974

-서울고등법원 2016.06.10 2015나2060182

-제주지방법원 2020.06.23 2019나13698

-서울고등법원 2017.06.30 2016나210094