(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나55238

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) 창원지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나55238

건설기계임대료

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a mid-term rental business, such as cries, with the trade name of “C”.

B. The Defendant is a contractor who has been awarded a contract for the construction of a DNA apartment in Changwon-si, Masan-si.

C. During the period from November 9, 2018 to December 1, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) set the user fee of KRW 400,00 per day between 15 days at the same construction site; (b) leased the complainant at the same construction site; and (c) was issued a “written contract for confirmation of the use of the vehicle for filing a complaint” with the name of the company “B” in the user verification column from E.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Appellant leased the Appellant to the Defendant for 15-day rent of KRW 400,000,000, and claimed rent of KRW 6,000 (=400,000 x 15 days) and delayed payment damages. The Defendant did not lease the Appellant from the Plaintiff, and E did not claim that the Appellant is not an employee of the Defendant.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant concluded a subcontract with G and Musan D apartment construction on October 31, 2018; (b) the complainant leased by the Plaintiff was used for the external finishing work, such as the entrance ceiling, the construction of the board, the operation of the entrance board, the operation of the entrance board, and the glance work; and (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge E as the Defendant’s employee; (b) the fact-finding alone is insufficient to deem the party who concluded the rental contract with the Plaintiff as the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should pay rent to the plaintiff as a party to the Crereat Rental Contract is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The conclusion is that.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.11.18 2020가단509756

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.12.20 2017가합11083

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.06.26 2015고정154

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.07.19 2015가단22030

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.09.16 2018가단4301