유체동산인도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. On April 25, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a facility lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From September 2017, the Defendant delayed payment of the lease fee under the said lease agreement at least twice in arrears and thus the said agreement was terminated pursuant to Article 20(2) of the said General Terms and Conditions. Article 20(2) of the said General Terms and Conditions provides that the Plaintiff may seek the return of leased property to the Defendant where the lease was terminated for the foregoing reason, there is no dispute between the parties.
According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated earlier pursuant to Article 20 (2) of the General Terms and Conditions of the Lease contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the movable property stated in the attached list, which is the leased property.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the grounds for insolvency occurred in around 2017 and the application for rehabilitation was filed, the plaintiff's obligation against the plaintiff should be performed in accordance with the above rehabilitation procedure.
In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant filed an application for rehabilitation with the Busan District Court 2017 Gohap1 on October 25, 2017, taking into account the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of this case.
However, even if the order to commence rehabilitation proceedings was rendered against the above application, the defendant withdrawn the above application for rehabilitation on March 7, 2018, which was before the order to commence rehabilitation proceedings, and the above court granted permission on March 9, 2018 and also recognized that rehabilitation proceedings for the defendant have been completed.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the rehabilitation procedure against the defendant is in progress is not correct without examining any further.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.