(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나57884

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나57884

약정금 지급 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Even if the allegations by the parties concerned and the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the first instance court are closely examined, it does not seem that there was any error in the findings and judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The 2nd page 10 to 13 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be applied to the following parts:

“C. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s deposit account on March 28, 2013. After several months, the Plaintiff’s actual operator C and the Defendant Company’s actual operator D, with respect to the investment amount of KRW 100 million, “The amount borrowed from D shall be determined as KRW 100 million from March 29, 2013 to March 28, 2014, and as KRW 1.5% from March 28, 2014 from March 28, 2013.” The date of preparation was written with the money tea certificate (Evidence 5) that was written retroactively as of March 28, 2013. The evidence and evidence presented prior to the recognition of the “the entire facts admitted” as of March 6, 2013 of the judgment of the first instance court, and evidence No. 11 and evidence No. 11 were written and written as a whole.

“As of March 28, 2013,” written “as of March 28, 2013,” and “as of March 28, 2013,” written “as of March 28, 2013,” written as of March 28, 2013.

The first instance court's decision No. 3 No. 11 stated "Ap. 11 stated "Ap. 3, E. Do, the Plaintiff's co-representative director, appears to be "Ap. 100 million won," and "Ap. 100 million won, it appears that D, the Plaintiff's co-representative director, stated that D is the money borrowed individually from C in his/her own case of occupational breach of trust."

3. Accordingly, the conclusion of the first instance judgment is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.22 2016나85073

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.08 2016나69118

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.15 2017나27265

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2017나33260

-광주지방법원 2016.10.07 2016나50708