(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나66186

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) 광주지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나66186

드라마제작 지원금 반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance stating “Defendant A” is dismissed as “Codefendant A of the court of first instance,” and (b) except for the part to be dismissed as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, (c) this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of

(The defendant did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal and did not state specific grounds for appeal). 2. The part which was dismissed.

A. On March 3, 197, 18, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) appears to be “Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”)”.

B. From 4 to 6, the first instance judgment is as follows.

[3] The plaintiff shall pay 60 million won, which is part of the production subsidy, to the designated account of the co-defendant A of the first instance trial within seven days from the commencement date of shooting, and the balance of 100 million won shall be deposited into the joint account of the defendant and the co-defendant A of the first instance trial (Article 4). (4) The defendant and the co-defendant A of the first instance trial are independent contracting parties, but they are to proceed on behalf of the co-defendant A of the first instance trial (e.g., opening a joint name passbook, rights and obligations thereof) (Article 5(1)).

C. On April 14th of the first instance judgment, Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall be deemed to be “Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial.”

Part 4 of the first instance judgment, 21 E "E" shall be changed to D.

E. On June 15th of the first instance judgment, “a clause stipulating the performance of an obligation under the instant contract” is deemed to read “a clause stipulating the performance of an obligation under the instant contract”.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-특허법원 2020.05.15 2018나2032

-서울고등법원 2017.11.24 2017나2025220

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.12 2020나8806

-서울고등법원 2014.12.10 2014나11507

-부산고등법원 2020.01.16 2019나51553