(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.04 2017나6570 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.04 2017나6570

장비임대료

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a person who engages in cream rental business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who engages in the business of repairing road facilities in the trade name of "D."

From June 1, 2010 to July 22, 2010, the Defendant is obligated to pay the rent of KRW 14,190,000, without paying the equipment, even if he/she rents and uses the bags several times from the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that "D" is actually operated by the defendant, other than the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to pay the rent for the equipment of this case to the plaintiff.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the actual operator of "D" leased and used by the plaintiff from "C" operated by the plaintiff appears to be "C", and the defendant who lent the name of business registration is not obliged to pay the rent for the equipment of this case to the plaintiff.

(A) The Plaintiff is not liable to the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff is liable to the nominal lender of domestic affairs, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s intention or gross negligence is recognized and the Defendant is not liable to the nominal lender.

On February 23, 2009, the Defendant was issued a new business registration certificate for each business name of "D" and "F" (the location of a business place is the same as "Yansan-si members Gly 3, 3201, and the business purpose is the same as "road facility repair business").

However, since the defendant, who was a student in 1987, was a university student at the time, it is difficult to view that the defendant established and operated the above D' and F's establishment.

B. The Defendant’s father E created and used the name of the above “F” as the representative, and the head of the Tong in the name of the Defendant.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단23431

-부산지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나11278

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.09.25 2015가합1849

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.11.03 2015가단6337

-수원지방법원 2014.07.16 2014고단984