logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.02.20 2019나2019908
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2).

Part 2, "creditors" in Part 12 shall be the defendant as the defendant of the neighboring mortgagee.

The "612.74 square meters parking lot" in the 7th 15th Do shall be added to "612.73 square meters parking lot".

In the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim of the defendant was not constituted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts (including interest agreements in addition to the principal) of the occurrence of the claim.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant regarding the existence of the interest agreement among the secured debt in the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case is irrelevant to the judgment (Evidence A 10) of the loan claim case filed by the Defendant against E and D. This is merely the fact that the Defendant received a judgment against the aforementioned two persons by public notice or the judgment of deemed as having been rendered, and thus, the evidence is not worth

The judgment of the first instance recognized a non-existent interest agreement by misunderstanding the facts.

In light of the legal principles and circumstances as seen above, it is reasonable to view that there exists an interest agreement among the secured debt of the instant mortgage establishment registration.

On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

Even though it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, etc. in the civil trial, the facts which have been recognized in the related civil cases which have already been established are significant evidence unless there are special circumstances.

However, in such a case, it is difficult to accept the fact-finding of the final judgment on the relevant civil case in light of other evidence submitted in the civil procedure.

arrow