(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.29 2018가단21166

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.10.29 2018가단21166

장비대금

Text

1. The Defendant: 17,393,750 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); 550,000 won to the Selection C; and 34,980,000 won to the Selection D.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was awarded a contract for some of the construction works of the construction works of the K-si L Apartment, which is implemented by the non-party K-based corporation.

B. From March 2018, the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) leased construction-oriented equipment and equipment engineers, such as digging machines, etc., from around March 2018, and performed the work of transporting sand.

C. The apartment of this case is going to move in as the completion stage at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 15 and 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that they posted construction-oriented equipment and equipment in the construction site of an apartment from March 2018 to September 2018 after concluding a lease contract with the Defendant. They still claim rent for equipment after July 26, 2018.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs concluded a contract for the lease of equipment with M on the behalf of the defendant, and even if not, the defendant expressed his/her intention to grant the right to representation to M and N to conclude a contract for the lease of equipment, and the plaintiffs knew that M and N have the right to representation.

B. On January 8, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered into a subcontract with Nonparty Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (M) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”). Since the Plaintiffs entered into a equipment rental agreement with the Nonparty Co., Ltd., the Defendant is not obligated to pay the equipment cost

3. Determination

A. Generally, whether to enter into a contract for the lease of equipment between the plaintiffs and the defendant constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties involved in the contract.

If there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a juristic act, which becomes a problem in the interpretation of the intention of the parties, comprehensive consideration of the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background of such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intention of the parties, etc. shall be

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.05.09 2017가단1263

-청주지방법원 2019.03.22 2018나9792

-울산지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단846

-전주지방법원 2016.05.04 2015나1416

-울산지방법원 2018.06.28 2018가합21896