(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.05.24 2018나62379

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) 부산지방법원 2019.05.24 2018나62379

배당이의

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment that is to indicate the facts and the allegations of the parties is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following contents to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, this Court’s judgment is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The following shall be added to Chapter 6 of the first instance judgment.

In addition, the plaintiff could withdraw the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the building of this case. Accordingly, the defendant could not assert the right as a tenant of the building of this case.

2. Determination

A. The principle of trust and good faith is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise the right or perform his/her duty in such a manner as to take into account the other party’s interest, and thus, in order to be subject to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of good faith, a certain person’s act is contradictory to his/her preceding act, and thus, if granting the legal effect as originally intended, it should be the case where the former act unfairly infringes another person’s trust caused by such preceding act. To this end, there should be objectively contradictory acts and subsequent acts, and there should be a trust worth protecting the other party’s interest arising from such preceding act.

In addition, in order to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it violates the principle of good faith, the other party provided good faith.

In light of the concept of justice, it should be objectively viewed that the other party is in a legitimate state, and the exercise of rights against the other party's faith should reach such an irrecoverable state as to the extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2390 delivered on April 22, 2003, etc.).

Gap 2 through 5, 10, .

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 4. 22. 선고 2003다2390, 2406 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.12.16 2016나56144

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.26 2014나18499

-서울고등법원 2014.11.14 2014누44603

-부산지방법원 2021.04.16 2020나46394

-대법원 2015.04.23 2012다112596