logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2016.01.13 2014나3800
채무부존재확인
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, the absence of the obligation to return the price of goods is confirmed.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Review of the record of recognition reveals the following facts:

1) The Plaintiff sought at the complaint to confirm that there is no “debted amount exceeding KRW 30,00,000 and “liability for damages” and “liability for damages” against the Defendant under the instant supply contract. However, the order of the first instance court merely states that “the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant under the instant supply contract shall be KRW 442,461,00 and the amount shall be KRW 6% per annum from August 2, 201 to March 26, 2014, and the amount shall not be exceeded by 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and the Plaintiff’s remaining claims shall be dismissed.” The purport of the judgment of the first instance is that “the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the goods to the Defendant under the instant supply contract shall not exceed KRW 30,000,000,000” and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the goods pursuant to the instant supply contract shall not be explained only with respect to the existence and the scope of the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the goods.”

3. On the judgment of the first instance court, only the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff among the judgment of the first instance, and the purport of appeal submitted by the plaintiff is as follows: "The part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The obligation to return the price of goods to the defendant under the supply contract of this case shall not exceed KRW 30,000,000 shall not be exceeded."

B. Whether there is omission of judgment or not shall be judged by the statement in the text, and even though the judgment on the whole of the claims is written in the text, if the judgment on the part of the claims has been omitted during the reasons, it may be deemed that there is an omission of judgment without attaching the reasons.

arrow