(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가단24392

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) 광주지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가단24392

약정금 및 동산인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a container manufacturer, and the defendant is a game business operator.

On October 16, 2012, the Defendant leased one container (3m x 7m) from the Plaintiff and installed and used it in B in Naju City. The Defendant did not pay rent from May 23, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 50,000 and the damages for delay from May 22, 2015, which is the day following the payment date (the claim is claimed from May 23, 2015), deliver one container (standard 3m x 7m) to the Plaintiff, and pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20,000 per day from May 23, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the above container.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the monthly rent of 110,000 won (excluding value-added tax) and the lease agreement between October 16, 2012 between the plaintiff and the defendant on October 16, 2012 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as 12 months from the lease period.

However, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the overall purport of the testimony and arguments by the witness C, it is recognized that the Plaintiff actually leased one container from the Plaintiff is C, and that such circumstance appears to have been known to the Plaintiff’s employee; C, around May 2015, was settled and paid by settling accounts that the Plaintiff had been in arrears until the time; C, around June 2015, requested the termination of the container lease agreement and the removal of the container, but C, however, did not respond to the request; C, operating the container office on the side of the container, appears to have failed to use the container.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the actual party to the container lease agreement of this case is the Plaintiff and C, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the Defendant as the lessee is no longer necessary.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.10.07 2014가단24685

-광주지방법원 2020.08.21 2019가단544371

-대구지방법원 2020.01.09 2019고정925

-창원지방법원 2016.11.30 2016가단8070

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2014.11.11 2014고정607