(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.18 2015나15056

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 2015.12.18 2015나15056

투자금 반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except in cases where part of the judgment of the first instance is re-written or added as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Re-written testimony by a witness L in the first instance court shall be followed and re-written into “each testimony by a witness L in the first instance court and witness T in the first instance court”.

The following shall be added between the 13th sentence of the first instance court and the 14th sentence:

⑤ In the first instance court held that “T, which had legal advice from the beginning of December 2012 to October 2013, which had been given to the Defendant, has been managing relevant documents, such as E Korea’s corporate seal imprint or seal imprint cards, while substantially promoting N, and C made an investment by raising funds from the Plaintiff’s representative director.” This corresponds to the testimony and substitution in the first instance court of L.

The 7th sentence of the first instance court is "(7)", and the 17th sentence of the first instance court is "(7)", and the 1 and 2 of the Eul evidence 9-1 and 2 are not sufficient to reverse it."

The "Dogdo" in the 8th seventh sentence of the first instance court shall be added to "Dogdogdo".

The "statement" in the 8th eightth sentence of the first instance court shall be followed as follows:

In the first instance trial, T also stated that “E Korea is Puercom created for the Defendant.” As a result, N and C established both E Korea and the Defendant for the purpose of running I Rental Business and did not strictly distinguish them, it concluded the instant MOA in the name of E Korea, and the instant lease agreement, the legal relationship and continuity of which are related, appears to have been concluded in the name of the Defendant.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is this.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2014나2029429

-서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2014나43078

-서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2013나2007729

-서울고등법원 2015.08.13 2013나2021497

-서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2014나18096