logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.09.16 2013가단57763
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D around July 2009, leased a food factory in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “E”) owned by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and started to operate the factory in the same way as the funds invested from G received from G to operate the factory. On November 17, 2009, Defendant C acquired G’s investment shares in the name of Defendant B in the wife.

B. On August 30, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the transfer or acquisition of the instant plant facilities and lease (hereinafter “instant transfer or acquisition contract”) with Defendant C, who represented Defendant B, to acquire the investment shares in Defendant B in KRW 80 million, and paid KRW 80 million for the acquisition price to Defendant C.

C. D, whenever it is necessary to make a new lease contract with a financial investor or a person designated by D as a lessee, D requested the representative director H to prepare a new lease contract. H, without any particular objection, affixed a seal on D’s lease contract. On September 1, 2011, the following day after the date of the instant transfer/acquisition contract, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, setting a deposit of KRW 10 million and KRW 1.8 million per month for the instant factory building.

Around October, 2012, when a year has elapsed since 2012, D, who operated the instant factory, committed suicide. In the course of the Plaintiff’s attempt to sell facilities, etc. of the instant factory to others, the Plaintiff heard the phrase “the owner of the facilities installed in the instant factory (referring to the part of “factory house” attached to the evidence A; hereinafter “instant factory house”) is the owner of the instant factory and there was no lease to Defendant B.”

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff identified the current status of the facilities installed in the instant factory, including the instant factory house, and around March 28, 2013, the Defendant “Defendant” in the instant factory to the Plaintiff.

arrow