(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.12.03 2014나27564

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) 서울고등법원 2014.12.03 2014나27564

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those used or added as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that is dismissed or added is deemed to be “as alleged by the Defendant,” and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance 4th seven pages of the reasoning of the judgment, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The 4th 9th eth 9th eth son of the judgment in the first instance court shall be deemed to have received a remittance.

The following shall be added to 5 pages next to the 5th written judgment of the first instance.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is the fact that the transaction of goods (on the basis of the price for the goods between the Defendant and macrosan) leading to the “Sacheon-do Non-Sacheon-do,” was merely a document transaction, and thus, there was no obligation to pay for the goods to the Defendant of Masan. Therefore, there is no reason to pay for the Defendant of Macheon-do to pay the price for the goods. Therefore, it is also the purport that the amount equivalent to KRW 899,03,50, which was immediately deposited to the Defendant, was received from the Defendant as the price for the goods, and immediately returned to the Defendant.

However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, there is no actual provision of goods to the defendant as to the corresponding transaction. Thus, this part of the claim against the defendant as to the price of goods cannot be created, and therefore, the claim for the price of goods equivalent to the above amount is without merit.

[Attachment]

3. The decision of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.09.06 2017누65908

-서울고등법원 2018. 09. 06. 선고 2018누42964 판결

-서울고등법원 2018. 05. 02. 선고 2017누88550 판결

-서울고등법원 2015.01.14 2014나2029559

-서울고등법원 2020.09.10 2020누37934