logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.07 2018나2013385
대여금
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. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

It is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance except for amendments as stated in the following Paragraph 2 and adding the judgments in the court of first instance, and it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The amendment of the first instance court’s 5th sentence of the second instance judgment (1) added “the Plaintiff and C” to “the Plaintiff” as “the Plaintiff,” and added “C” to “a separate intention in front of “a written agreement” of the said 12th sentence, respectively. 2) The first instance court’s 4th sentence of the first instance judgment (i.e., “no dispute exists,” and then (ii) added to “the date of entry of a transfer is indicated as August 1, 2007,” and (iii) added “the Plaintiff” of the 4th and 5th sentence to “the Defendant.”

3. Following the “value of transfer” in the fourth and fifth instances of the first instance judgment, the Defendant added “the time of transfer” to “the time of transfer,” and the “Defendant” in the 16th instance judgment to “the Plaintiff.”

2. Determination of the attached articles

A. Even if the Plaintiff submitted additional statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 14 (including each number), it is insufficient to view that the value of the D shares, which the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff at the time of transfer, was KRW 0,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(In the trial, at the time of entry of the change of holders, the appraisal procedure for the value of the said D shares was scheduled, but the plaintiff was withdrawn from the appraisal application after the change of holders. (B)

Therefore, we cannot accept all the plaintiff's argument on the grounds of appeal against this point.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow