(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2019.10.16 2018가단7528

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) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2019.10.16 2018가단7528

선박명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the vessels listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 96,724,000 and this shall apply thereto.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff leased the vessel listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant vessel”) to the Defendant on or around September 2013 by setting the period from September 35, 200,000 to August 2015. The Defendant was transferred the instant vessel from around that time to September 2017 and used the instant vessel until September 2017, and was anchored in Taecheoncheon, and the Defendant paid the vehicle for the first year from September 2013 to September 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff did not pay the vehicle thereafter, thereby recognizing the fact that a duplicate of the complaint of this case containing an expression of intent to terminate the said lease agreement was served on the Defendant on October 31, 2018, and there is no counter-proof evidence.

According to this, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the ship of this case to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff the sum of rent of KRW 105,000,000 and delay damages from September 2014 to August 2017.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. The Defendant’s judgment as to the defense of ship delivery is the defense that the Plaintiff transferred the instant vessel to the Plaintiff around September 2017 by changing the name of fishery permission for the instant vessel to the Plaintiff.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff changed the name of fishery permission for the instant vessel to the Plaintiff around September 2017, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant transferred the instant vessel to the Plaintiff around that time. Therefore, the aforementioned defense is without merit.

B. Determination of set-off defenses 1 Defendant paid KRW 52,094,410 to the Plaintiff, KRW 34,00,000, and KRW 1,613,293 to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant vessel, when the repair cost is paid under the fishing vessel insurance during the above-term lease period to be borne by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff paid KRW 87,707,703 to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.06.27 2017가단51656

-서울고등법원 2016.09.02 2016나2010504

-대법원 1998. 2. 10. 선고 97다10468 판결

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.05.19 2018가단5712

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.02.03 2015가단20595