(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.02.03 2011나48768

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 2012.02.03 2011나48768

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount cited below.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) changing the “10%” and “70%” of the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment to “40%”; (b) “210,342,667 won” of the 11st part of the judgment to “120,195,810 won”; and (c) “B” of the 11 second part of the 11st part to “B” to “B” as stated in the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (d) thereby, this shall be cited in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. First, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not express his intention to substitute the indemnity of the residents of this case to the plaintiff on the ground that the sales contract prepared between the defendant and the residents of this case states that "the seller bears the burden of the pre-paid portion as of the date of prohibition of the remaining payment."

However, as recognized by the first instance court, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant at the time of purchasing a building and site from the residents of this case (the Defendant and the District Housing Association were competitively related, and the Defendant’s employees are responsible to the Defendant); the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion on the advance notice of indemnity in December 1, 2006; the Defendant submitted an application for installment payment; the details of indemnity issued by the Plaintiff are specified in the imposition period; and the Defendant paid the first installment without any objection, the Defendant agreed to pay indemnity on behalf of the residents of this case; and the Plaintiff also expressed its intent to pay indemnity in lieu of the residents of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

C. In other words, the defendant asserts that even if the defendant expressed his/her intent to pay indemnity in substitution, it cannot be evaluated as a deception, which is a tort.

However, as seen above.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2012.02.03 2011나48768

-서울고등법원 2012.2.3.선고 2011나48768 판결

-대법원 2015.5.14.선고 2012다27438 판결

-대법원 2015.05.14 2012다27438

-서울중앙지방법원 2011.05.12 2010가합93887 (1)