(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.20 2015나13673

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) 수원지방법원 2017.01.20 2015나13673

동산인도

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the movable property of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, such as asserting and supporting the legitimate source of right to possess the movable property of this case.

B. As to the judgment on the defense, the defendant asserted that he acquired the movable property of this case from the non-party company in good faith.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 2, the defendant concluded on February 18, 2014 a contract with the non-party company to purchase two parts, including the movable property of this case, (excluding value-added tax) including CNC A and its pumps, and contact beer, in total, KRW 320 million (excluding value-added tax). The defendant acquired and possessed the movable property of this case from the non-party company as mentioned above. Thus, the defendant is presumed to possess the movable property of this case in good faith by taking over the movable property of this case in a peaceful and openly, barring special circumstances.

Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant was negligent in not knowing the fact that the non-party company was not the owner of the instant movable property due to the conclusion of the instant lease contract, the following circumstances revealed in light of the following: (a) the non-party company is a regular agent (NMURA AGENOFOEOREA) of the company, which is called Japanese labor, and (b) the Defendant is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of accessories for air control, the manufacture and sale of electronic devices, etc., and the business of manufacturing and selling electronic devices, which appears to have engaged in ordinary transactions between the non-party company based on its actual demand.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.04.01 2014가단57095

-대전고등법원 2016.04.07 2015나12367

-대전지방법원 2016.06.30 2015가단43674

-수원지방법원성남지원 2013.09.12 2013가단19556

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.27 2015가단22123