beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 72,432,139 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from October 24, 2013 to January 22, 2014.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The fact that the Defendant, who had been engaged in transportation business with the trade name of basic fact B, paid C (hereinafter “instant barge”) to the Plaintiff, who had been engaged in land, maritime transportation business, etc. as its main business on August 15, 2012, with the period from September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2017 (Provided, That the period is: (a) from September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2017; (b) the down payment is KRW 50,000,000; (c) the down payment is KRW 25,000,000,000 for the rent month; and (d) the estimated amount of damages is KRW 10,000,000 for the compensation amount; and (c) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 to the Defendant around that time; and (d) there was no dispute between the neighboring parties or the entire parties.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) required a tugboat capable of towing the Plaintiff’s barge to the vicinity of Ulsan-do, a coastal area. At the time of concluding the instant lease agreement, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonparty D, etc., leased the barge that is not suitable for operating the coastal area to the Plaintiff.
(2) On November 21, 2012, the Defendant instructed the captain of the instant barge to leave the port. On the 24th day of the same month, the Defendant instructed the captain of the instant barge to not load the cargo, and obstructed the departure of the instant barge on the ground of engine inspection. On the 30th day of the same month, the instant barge was leased to Nonparty Co., Ltd., and obstructed the Plaintiff’s business.
(3) Since the Defendant violated the instant lease agreement, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the estimated damages amounting to KRW 100,000,000 and the delay damages amount.
B. First of all, we examine the fact that the Defendant, in collusion with Nonparty D, leased a tugboat not suitable for the operation of the coastal sea area to the Plaintiff.