beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants deliver containers listed in the separate sheet; and
B. The defendant corporation.
Reasons
1. A claim against the defendant LiberS Co., Ltd.
A. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant SeaPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SeaPS”) and the containers listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant container”) owned by the Plaintiff, setting the lease agreement as KRW 500,000, monthly rent, until June 4, 2017.
Upon the expiration of the above lease term, Defendant SeapiS is obligated to deliver the instant container to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 2,500,000 per month from February 5, 2018 to February 4, 2018, and the rent of KRW 250,000 per month from February 5, 2018.
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant B
A. The instant container was owned by the Plaintiff. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant container to Defendant LiberS as seen earlier. 2) The instant container was kept in custody on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si land owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap 1, 2, and 3 or the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Determination 1) According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the instant container is owned by the Plaintiff, and as Defendant B occupies it, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant container to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. 2) The above Defendant’s assertion as to Defendant B’s assertion is a defense to the effect that it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition, which does not have any contractual relationship, since the instant container is kept on the Defendant’s land at the request of E, a representative D Co., Ltd.
However, even if all of the above arguments are admitted, Defendant B is not a legitimate defense against the request for extradition of this case, and otherwise Defendant B is not a defense.