(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.02.01 2018나3420 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2019.02.01 2018나3420

사용료 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The gist of the claim by the parties: (a) around June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff leased, through C (the husband of the Defendant), construction materials, such as fixed-type and connected strawing, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction materials”) to the Defendant regarding the construction of multi-family houses located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction materials”), from June 14, 2017 to August 31, 2017; (b) the Defendant paid rent of KRW 2,124,000; and (c) the Defendant did not pay rent of KRW 2,260,00 as well as damages or losses equivalent to KRW 2,260,00 of construction materials. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 4,384,00 and damages for delay.

Defendant: The Defendant did not know the Plaintiff and did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff or leased construction materials from the Plaintiff, such as the method of awarding the right of representation to C.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence No. 8, it is acknowledged that the defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the newly built multi-family house in the future of the defendant, but only the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the facts that the defendant and C are marital relations with the defendant are entitled to enter into a lease contract on behalf of the defendant on the instant construction materials.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, not C, on the construction materials of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the defendant is a party to the construction materials of this case, even though it is a party to the contract with the plaintiff, is without merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.05.30 2017나106174

-부산지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단37798

-광주지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나10116

-창원지방법원 2020.06.11 2019나4308

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.19 2015나54085