(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.21 2015나21785

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 2016.07.21 2015나21785

부당이득금

Text

1. The counterclaim part of the judgment of the court of first instance, including a claim modified at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. The "non-lease 4" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as "do not leased". The 7th and 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to the following Paragraph 2: the part between the 7th and 8th of the judgment, the 16th and 7th of the 16th and 8th of the judgment; and the part between the 9th and 15th of the 11th of the judgment, and the 16th and 20th of the 16th to 9th of the 17th of the 16th judgment shall be newly used as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the substitution of the 1, 2nd of the attached Table 1, 2 of the decision of the court of first instance into

2. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff, on September 28, 2006, paid KRW 50 million per unit on September 28, 2006, KRW 55 million in cash on November 30, 2006, issued to C a check on September 28, 2006, the date of payment of which was December 11, 2006, and paid KRW 55 million on December 30, 2006.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 12, 21-1, and 2, the part added between the 16th and 8 shall be as follows: (a) it may be recognized that Eul prepared a receipt to the plaintiff that he was issued with the plaintiff on September 28, 2006 the face value of KRW 50 million and the due date of December 11, 2006, and the fact that the above statement was deposited and settled in the account of Eul on December 2006 is as the defendant. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the defendant is with merit.

However, with regard to the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 55 million to C in cash on November 30, 2006, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

3. A new part.

(a) Forms 15 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance; and

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.07.22 2015나25022

-광주고등법원 2017.08.16 2016나16237

-서울고등법원 2015.04.02 2014나2029436

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2018.08.29 2017누3497

-서울고등법원 2018.12.11 2018누37450