채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation in this case is as follows, except where the judgment of the plaintiff’s additional assertion is added as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion related to Article 8(3) of the Terms and Conditions (1) of the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination 1) has continuously raised an issue as to the machinery to the Defendant after the receipt of the instant machinery, and even up to now, there is a defect in the present. The Defendant was negligent in not knowing the defect of the instant machinery. Therefore, the Defendant was negligent in not knowing the defect. Therefore, the general lease agreement applicable to the instant lease agreement (hereinafter
2) In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant knew or was negligent in not having known the defects in the instant machinery, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant knew or was negligent in not having known the defects in the instant machinery.
Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.
① In principle, the instant terms and conditions stipulate that a financial company is not liable for warranty against an article. In the event that a customer issues a certificate of receipt of an article, the financial company is unable to refuse the payment of rent or the performance of obligations stipulated in the instant contract due to delayed delivery of the article, defects, etc., but the financial lessee is unable to claim rent from the financial lessee if he/she knew or was negligent in not knowing the defect in advance.
(2) The lease contract of this case is selected by the Defendant, the lessee, as the lessee.