(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.30 2015가단15478

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.30 2015가단15478

리스료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on October 22, 2014, may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the following documents: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the effect that the Plaintiff purchases and uses the automobile B (hereinafter “instant automobile”) designated by the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the lease fee, etc. in return (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) on the basis of the agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or based on the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As to the assertion of violation of the duty of prohibition on unauthorized transfer, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the instant lease agreement by transferring the instant vehicle to a third party without the Plaintiff’s written consent, and that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate indicating his intent to terminate the instant lease agreement around December 15, 2014, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated by reaching the Defendant around that time, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claim under the instant lease agreement.

According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant cannot transfer the right of the customer as stated in the transfer, sub-lease, or agreement of the instant automobile without the Plaintiff’s prior written consent (Article 13 subparag. 1 of the Automobile Lease Clause). In the event that the Defendant performs the prohibited act as above, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to resolve the cause of occurrence in writing, and the Plaintiff may cancel the instant lease agreement and claim the return of the instant automobile if the Defendant fails to resolve the cause by the deadline set by the Plaintiff more than 10 days from the arrival date of notice.

(Article 20 (3) 2 of the Terms and Conditions) can be acknowledged that the plaintiff has made an agreement.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.21 2014가단222323

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.08 2015나46804

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.03.08 2018가단65104

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.29 2017가단216220

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.02 2015나41878