임대료 등
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:
1. The facts that the Defendants possessed the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff as to the claim for delivery, the claim for object, and the claim for repair expenses of the instant machinery. The market price of the instant machinery was 25,000,000 won, the Plaintiff was entrusted with the repair of the machinery owned by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,150,000 at the repair cost after being entrusted with the repair of the machinery owned by the Defendants to the secondary machinery for a stock company. The Defendants agreed to pay the above repair cost to the Plaintiff may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or by taking into account: (b) evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 7-1, and 2; and (c)
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and when it is impossible to execute delivery of the instant machinery, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 25,00,000 to the Plaintiff (the obligation of the Defendant to deliver and execute the instant machinery constitutes an indivisible obligation), the repair cost of KRW 3,150,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 21, 2016 until October 14, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, which is the delivery date of the instant complaint, to the day of complete payment.
(1) The Defendants’ claim for the payment of the repair costs is justifiable, and the Defendants’ claim for the payment of the repair costs and the delayed payment from the date of the payment of the repair costs. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for value-added tax is merely a substitute payment for the Defendants’ repair costs, and there is no basis to claim for the Defendants. The Defendants’ claim as to this part is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the repair costs constitutes a debt for which no time limit is set. Accordingly, the Defendants’ claim as to this part is without merit.