beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.10.17 2018가단211562

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic fact-finding lease object: The place where the Defendant is installed: D building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and the eight-story acquisition cost: 64,300,000 won: Lease charge for the period of 30 months from the date the certificate of receipt of the article is issued: 2.3 million won per month;

A. On November 14, 2017, Maz Capital Co., Ltd. entered into a contract for facility leasing (lease) with C as follows (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. Article 8(1) of the General Lease Clause incorporated into the instant contract provides that “A customer may claim damages directly against the seller if the damage has occurred due to the delay or defect of delivery of the goods.”

C. The Defendant, at the dental hospital operated by the Plaintiff (the location of the leased object as stipulated in the instant contract), installed a bowling machine Mtill 5 X (hereinafter “instant machine”). D.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by asserting that on March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to defective defects in the instant machinery, while performing dental treatment using the instant machinery.

At first, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant representative director to claim damages against the defendant representative director, but on March 25, 2018, filed an application for correction of the party indication with the defendant company.

On April 12, 2018, this Court decided to rectify the Defendant from “F to “B” as the Defendant’s request for correction, and the said decision became final and conclusive.

After that, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff Hospital on April 13, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff Hospital on April 20, 2018 and inspected the instant machinery and presented an opinion that it is necessary to repair it due to damage caused by customer care, and consultation with the Plaintiff on future solutions, etc., but did not reach an agreement.

[Reasons for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 13 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the fact-finding results on the E-district of the Incheon Southern Police Station in this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.