(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단141989

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단141989

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company that operates a facility leasing business. 2) The Plaintiff is a person who has engaged in gold-type, parts processing, and shooting-type business in the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who designs and produces plastic products withdrawal type in the trade name of D.

B. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with B as follows with respect to the gender criminal origin period (the model name: DL-450, S/N: 2712045024, annual formula: 2012, annual formula: 2012, and manufacturer: hereinafter “instant machinery”). On the same day, the Plaintiff delivered the said machinery to B, and agreed to transfer the unpaid principal free of charge after offsetting the deposit with the unpaid principal at the end of the lease period.

C. The Defendant loaned KRW 170,000,000 to B on April 20, 2016, the Defendant loaned KRW 170,000 to B on June 15, 2016, and additionally lent KRW 14,00,000 on June 2, 2016. At the time, B issued to the Defendant a written undertaking that “I will transfer the manufacturing equipment at the time of the termination of transaction if I would not repay the above loan amount of KRW 184,00,000.” (ii) The Defendant failed to repay the loan, and brought the instant machinery around July 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 2 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Defendant was unable to receive a loan from B, it stolen leased goods owned by the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages in the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant machinery. 2) The Defendant occupied the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff without permission, and is impossible to execute delivery in the future. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant machinery as compensatory damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is against the machinery of this case by lending money to B.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.12 2017나68068

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.11.27 2018가단55763 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가합43224

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2019.04.02 2018가단2163

-수원지방법원 2017.07.06 2016가단529419