(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.02 2016나1955 | 리걸엔진

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 2016.09.02 2016나1955

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. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) The following shall be added between conduct 20 on pages 2 and 3 on pages 1 on the first instance judgment:

E. Accordingly, C appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2016No6) rendered a judgment on April 22, 2016 sentenced C to imprisonment with labor for one year and four months, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. In the first instance judgment No. 4, No. 19-20 of the first instance court’s decision, the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 85 million to the Defendant only with the entry of the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 85 million to the Defendant (the same shall apply to the Plaintiff, considering the details of the monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant claimed in the first instance trial).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s attorney’s appointment of Defendant C as a defense counsel in the Seoul Central District Court case 2016No. 6 as seen earlier and the act of representing the Defendant in this case constitutes a ground for limiting the case’s acceptance under Article 31(1)1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and thus, the act of litigation is invalid.

Article 31 (1) 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that an attorney-at-law may not perform his/her duties for a case in which one of the parties concerned has accepted an award and the other party has consented to such acceptance. In light of the legislative purport of the above provision, the same attorney-at-law has been appointed as a counsel for the defendant in a criminal case and has performed his/her duties such as defense activities, and then

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-변호사법 제31조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.09.02 2016나2005434

-대법원 2009. 2. 26. 선고 2008도9812 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.02.18 2015나2032828

-대법원 2003. 5. 30. 선고 2003다15556 판결

-서울고등법원 2021.04.01 2019나2058552