(영문) 서울고등법원 2021.02.02 2020나2014572

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 2021.02.02 2020나2014572

양도대금 등 청구

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added by this court, shall be modified as follows:

(a)..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for this part of this Court is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal as follows.

The three parallels in the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance “1. The ownership of the Defendant by the transferor” is “the ownership of the Plaintiff by the transferor of 1....”

2. As to the principal claim

A. 1) As to the cause of the claim, this part of the claim for the payment of the down payment under the transfer contract is identical to the 6th five parallels (excluding parallels) through 7th parallels (7th parallels) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2) This part of the claim for a loan is identical to the 10th 13th 13 to 12th 9th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the claim is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) As to the defenses, the defendant's assertion that the first transfer contract of this case was made in accordance with the false declaration of agreement in order to facilitate the authorization and permission of the health authorities, and in fact, the defendant acquired the hospital's obligations without paying the down payment and operated it for a limited period of three years.

The third transfer contract of this case, which does not have a contract deposit provision, is a genuine contract between the parties.

B) (1) In order to establish a false declaration of intention, there must be an agreement between the other party on the discrepancy and the actual intention of the declaration of intention.

In addition, the legal act bears the burden of proving that it is a false representation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007; 98Da17909, Sept. 4, 1998; 2005Da39617, Sept. 12, 2007; 2009, etc.). (2) Even if the evidence additionally submitted by the defendant to this court is examined, it is insufficient to recognize that the transfer contract of this case 1 was prepared by the false representation of the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence

Part of the following:

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 9. 4. 선고 98다17909 판결

-대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2005다39617 판결

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2019.01.10 2018나53132

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나6755

-서울고등법원 2017.05.10 2016누751

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2021.04.14 2020누10763

-부산고등법원 2018.01.12 2017누20651