(영문) 대전고등법원 2014.12.18 2014나893 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전고등법원 2014.12.18 2014나893

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the conjunctive claim added at the trial, the defendant 31,000.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the conjunctive claim added at the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition (the judgment on the ancillary claim added at the trial)

A. The Defendant did not dispute the conjunctive claim that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff on June 6, 1993 and KRW 90 million on January 15, 1994.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 31 million after subtracting the remainder of KRW 59 million, which the Plaintiff voluntarily admitted that the Plaintiff had been paid out of the above loan amount of KRW 90 million.

B. The defendant asserts that all of the above borrowed money was repaid.

However, the defendant or the defendant's mother E, the plaintiff et al. is 3. A.

The facts of remitting money as stated in paragraph (1) are as recognized by the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited by the court of first instance, but there is no evidence to support that the remainder of money excluding the money that the plaintiff voluntarily recognized as being paid as repayment for the loan of this case has been paid as repayment for the loan of this case.

C. According to an intermediate conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 17, 2014 to the day of full payment after the copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case was served to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff demanded the return of the borrowed amount.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim shall be accepted as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the primary claim.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.12.21 2018가단14853

-대구고등법원 2016.09.29 2016나20191

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나21808

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2045091

-광주고등법원(제주) 2015.06.24 2014나1357