Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on February 25, 2003 Cassation


Appeal No.: 99-18931
titled Unreleased Chairman: Mr. Lemontey

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling:

The unique way, made its first branch:

Having regard to Articles 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code;

Whereas by private act of December 30, 1994, the holding company Dentechnica France recognized duty MX .. the sum of 75,000 francs, the latter sued for repayment of the money the company objected to this request, arguing that the funds they had not been delivered so that the IOU would be without cause;

Whereas, to dismiss MX .. its claim, the Court of Appeal ruled that it did not bring proof of the loan and it was not shown that the obligation to pay subscribed by the holding company Dentechnica France was caused;

That in so holding, while the cause of the obligation is believed to be accurate it was for the holding company Dentechnica France to prove the reality of the absence of remittances, the appeals court has violated these articles ;

FOR THESE REASONS, without any need to rule on the second part of the plea:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of June 18, 1999, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Amiens;

calls, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before the judgment and to be granted, the returns to the Court of Appeal of Douai;

Condemns the holding company at the expense Dentechnica France;

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the request for the holding company Dentechnica France;

Said that the audit of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, the above will be sent to be transcribed in the margin or as a result of the broken off;

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 25 February two thousand and three.



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Amiens (4th Commercial Division) 1999-06-18


Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 1

Public hearing on December 14, 1999 Rejection


Appeal No.: 97-17697
Unpublished Chairman: Mr. Lemontey

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling:

The appeal brought by Mr Gilbert Kerboriou, residing 29, rue Forsand, 91470 Limours,

to quash a decision of 30 May 1997 by the Court of Appeal of Paris (15th Chamber, Section B), in favor of Jean Thouard, residing 150 rue Lafayette, 75010 Paris, took both his own name what art qualities of legal administrator of his two minor children Ferdinand and Vincent,

defendant to appeal;

The applicant relies in support of its appeal, the sole means of appeal annexed to this Order;

THE COURT, in the public hearing on November 10, 1999, which were present: Mr. Lemontey, president, Bargue, reporting judge, MM. Renard-Payen, Ancel, Durieux, Ms. Benas, MM. Guerin, Sempere, counselors, Ms. Catry, Cassuto-Teytaud, counselors referendum, Mrs. Small, General Counsel, Ms. Collet, Clerk of the Chamber;

On the report of Mr. Bargue, counselor, observations of Mr. Vuitton, counsel for Mr. Kerboriou of Me Copper-Royer, counsel for Mr. Thouard, the findings of Ms. Small, General Counsel, and after deliberating in accordance with law;

Whereas, according to the judgment (Paris, May 30, 1997), that on 15 October 1988, Mr. Kerboriou signed two IOUs in favor of Ms. Thouard, the amounts should be refunded upon request of Mrs. Thouard in within fifteen days in one of the foreign countries named, Ms. Thouard having died in 1992, her husband, Mr. Thouard, acting on its behalf and as legal administrator of property of minor children has assigned Mr. Kerboriou paid by way of damages, the amounts entered on the two acts, that the contested decision upheld the application;

The unique way, made its first two branches, as set out in statement of claim and annexed:

Whereas the cause of the obligation assumed in the IOUs is presumed correct and that it is the debtor to prove the reality of the absence of remittances , that the contested decision is sovereign, notwithstanding the reason criticized by The second part, that this evidence was not reported, that the means can not be allowed;

The third part of the plea, as stated in the statement of claim and annexed:

Whereas the Court of Appeal, on application by Mr Thouard a request to the condemnation of the debtor to pay him damages for the injury suffered because of non-repayment of the loan, is, notwithstanding the reason for surplus criticized Mr. Kerboriou provided no evidence that he was released, while the money received is consideration for a loan repayable on demand of the lender from which it follows that the means nest without merit;

And the fourth part of the plea, as set out in statement of claim and annexed:

Whereas the Court of Appeals, which noted that the supreme aim of tax evasion was not shown, has, for that reason alone, legally justified its decision;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Dismiss the appeal;

Condemns Mr Kerboriou expense;

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejects claims of Mr. and Mr. Kerboriou Thouard;

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on December 14 thousand nine hundred and ninety to nine.



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Paris (15th Chamber, Section B) 1997-05-30

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 29.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: