(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.12.19 2017가단221413

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 2017.12.19 2017가단221413

건설가설재 인도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff’s temporary materials to the Defendant from February 1, 2013 to February 1, 2013

6. For the end of 30.30., a contract for leasing total rent of KRW 40,800,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) was concluded.

The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to receive KRW 12,00,000 as the down payment on the day when the instant contract was concluded, and the remainder of the rent, within 30 days after the end of the month.

B. The Plaintiff from February 19, 2013 to the Defendant for the same year.

4. Until June, 16, the temporary site of this case leased 221.245 tons.

C. Around June 4, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the total rent of KRW 40,800,000.

From July 1, 2013 to March 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) used the temporary materials in this case for a period of 45 months from July 1, 2013 to March 31, 2017; (b) used the temporary materials in this case to obtain unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to KRW 397,800,000; and (c) continuously used the temporary materials in this case after April 1, 2017, the Defendant made unjust enrichment of the amount of KRW 8,840,000 which is equivalent

E. The Defendant, as a lessee of the instant temporary materials, is obligated to deliver the instant temporary materials to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 428,60,000 and the damages for delay as well as the amount of KRW 8,840,00 per month from April 1, 2017 to the date of delivery of the instant temporary materials.

2. The judgment and the conclusion are that the lessee of the temporary material of this case is the defendant, and there is evidence No. 2 that corresponds thereto, but considering the purport of the entire pleadings in witness B’s testimony, the Plaintiff is the person who leased the temporary material of this case from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is one of the companies borrowing the name for tax treatment, and the Plaintiff also can be acknowledged as having concluded the contract of this case by recognizing the lessee of the temporary material of this case as B. Thus, the evidence No. 2 of this case can be acknowledged.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.10.30 2014가합101068

-대전지방법원 2020.04.21 2018나115366

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.12.27 2017가단202936

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.06.23 2015가합390

-제주지방법원 2015.12.11 2015가단11976