(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단146379

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단146379

임대료 및 손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The purport of the instant claim is that the Defendant, the contractor for the construction of a port in the port in the north-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the main contractor for the construction of a new tunnel for the main section of the main section of the main section of the main railway section for the construction of the main section for the construction of the main section of the main section for the construction of the main section for the construction of the main section of the construction of the main section for the main section of the construction of the main section for the main section of the construction of the main section for the main section of the construction, upon which the Plaintiff’s inputs the B PPcar owned by the main contractor into the construction site at the aforesaid construction site as of March 19, 2014, concluded a lease agreement with the original and the Defendant as of March 12, 200,000 won (excluding value-added tax) and the delay damages therefrom.

2. The plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted, and the reasons are as follows.

Although the Plaintiff was deemed to have brought the above pumps to the above construction site on March 19, 2013 at the Defendant’s request, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a conclusive lease agreement on the above pumps at or before the time of provision of the pumps, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

On the other hand, even though the above pumps were not put into the tunnel construction due to Defendant's refusal and were found to have been left alone for three days at the construction site, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant refused to put into the tunnel construction without any reasonable and justifiable reason even if the equipment for the tunnel construction was installed in the above pumps at the time.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for appeal is without merit, Gap 1-15, Eul 1-4, the ground for appeal

3. The Defendant’s claim of this case, which is different from the above judgment, is dismissed as without merit.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.02.23 2017가합35

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.03.21 2017가단62528

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.06.22 2014가단101668

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.01.13 2014가단6282

-부산고등법원(창원) 2020.04.23 2019나12872