logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.02 2018가단523811
유체동산인도
Text

1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 26, 2017, an agricultural partnership E (hereinafter “E”) purchased the instant corporeal movables from a national bank, a mortgagee of the corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) at KRW 25 million.

B. On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with E to purchase the instant corporeal movables in the amount of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) and agreed to substitute the purchase price with the claim equivalent to KRW 30 million, which the Plaintiff had against E-U.F.

C. Defendant B is the owner of G’s factory located in the instant corporeal movables, and Defendant C is the lessee of the said factory, and Defendant C is the corporation using the instant corporeal movables in the said factory.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the judgment on the grounds of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant corporeal movables. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants holding the instant corporeal movables are obliged to deliver the instant corporeal movables to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant corporeal movables.

The defendants asserted that the contract of this case is invalid as a false declaration of agreement with the aim of evading E's debt. Thus, the plaintiff is not the owner of the corporeal movables of this case and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for delivery.

The facts stated in the evidence Nos. 4 through 7 alone are insufficient to recognize the contract of this case as a false conspiracy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow