(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2021.01.15 2020가단3644

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2021.01.15 2020가단3644

동산인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each movable set forth in the separate sheet to the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that leases a Plastt, which is a storage of plastic materials, to a company that carries goods. The Defendant is a company that runs a wholesale business with its head office in Seocheon-si and the warehouse in Incheon City.

B. The company that entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant's warehouse using telett owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff moved goods to the defendant's warehouse and recovered telett.

(c)

As of the closing date of pleadings, the defendant keeps a path on the attached list owned by the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, we examine the determination on the request for the delivery of a set, and according to the above facts, the defendant has the duty to deliver a set as stated in the attached list to the plaintiff, the owner of a set, as the defendant keeps a set in the attached list owned by the plaintiff.

B. 1) Determination of the Plaintiff’s claim on the previous claim 1) Plett that the Defendant must remain in 231 when examining the Plaintiff’s computerized number of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is nothing more than 197 sheets that the Defendant actually keeps. This is because the Defendant arbitrarily used Plett owned by the Plaintiff for another purpose and carried out it out to the outside.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 1,122,00 won (=34 x 33,000 won) of 34 Dolet 34 that was arbitrarily used and taken out as such (=231 - 197).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and changes in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6 through 10, 12, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff was used at will or taken out to the outside and making it impossible to recover them.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, this is applicable.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2021.01.15 2020가단3644

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.05.04 2016고정201

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.27 2018고단799

-대구지방법원 의성지원 2017.03.09 2016고단218

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.10.20 2017고단1713