(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.10 2017가단61174

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.10 2017가단61174

유체동산인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each video of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6-1, 2, 7, 1, 7, 1, 2, 2, 3-1, 8-1, 8-2, and 3-3, and the whole purport of the pleadings. The entry of Gap evidence No. 3-3 does not interfere with the above recognition, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

(1) On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (the acquisition cost of KRW 72 million, the lease period of KRW 36 months, the monthly lease fee of KRW 1,856,180) with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “user”) on the attached list (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to lend the instant machinery as indicated in the attached list, and accordingly, the lessee acquired the instant machinery and installed and used it at its workplace.

(2) According to the above lease agreement, “the ownership of the instant machinery exists on the Plaintiff, and if there are reasons such as delinquency of the lessee’s rent, etc., the lease agreement may be earlier terminated, and in such a case, the lessee shall return the instant machinery to the Plaintiff.” However, from August 28, 2013, the lessee delayed the lease fee, and the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement on the instant machinery on the grounds thereof.

(3) However, around April 7, 2014, Nonparty C, the representative director of the lessee, sold to the Defendant the instant machinery in the amount of KRW 150,800,000 (excluding value-added tax) together with two other machinery while making a false statement that the instant machinery was owned by the lessee. On or around April 15, 2014, Nonparty C, the representative director of the lessee, transferred the instant machinery to the Defendant, and thereafter, the Defendant occupied and used the instant machinery from that time.

B. According to the above facts, the instant machine is owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the instant machine based on ownership is reasonable.

2. Determination on the bona fide acquisition defense

A. The defendant against this.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단263953

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.07.19 2017가단113671

-부산지방법원 2021.01.20 2020나45285

-수원지방법원 2015.04.29 2015고단301