유체동산인도
1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff movable property listed in the separate sheet.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the claim, or according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the following facts are acknowledged, and the defendants are obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movables of this case”). A.
On June 2013, the Plaintiff operating a specialized credit financial business entered into a credit agreement (facility leasing agreement; hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) under which the said Plaintiff would lend the instant movable to the said Defendant with the following contents (hereinafter “instant movable property”), and around that time, the instant movable property was delivered to the said Defendant.
- Lease articles: lessor - Period of 36 months: - Monthly rent: 1,772,370 won
B. The Defendant Woo-dong Co., Ltd. is currently occupying and using the instant movable property while taking over the gas station from Defendant Woo-dong Co., Ltd.
C. The Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent based on the instant lease agreement, and the instant lease agreement was terminated around that time by declaring that it was terminated to the Defendant on January 1, 2015, on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated.
2. The Defendant, without knowing that the instant movable property was owned by the Plaintiff, did not have any duty to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, since the Defendant acquired the gas station operated by the Defendant, which included the instant movable property, from the Plaintiff, without having known that it was owned by the Plaintiff.
Although the fact that the Defendant Woo-dae, Inc. acquired the gas station from Defendant Woo-gu, Inc., the gas station was as seen earlier, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an effective transaction between the Defendants, such as the sale and purchase of the instant movable property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is with merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.