(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.07.13 2015나20742

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) 울산지방법원 2016.07.13 2015나20742

손해배상(기)

Text

1. An appeal against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant C’s main lawsuit and an appeal against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in a business, such as master repair, etc., with the trade name “D” around 2013, and E is a person who has been engaged in master repair for at least 30 years.

B. Defendant B was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electric motors, etc. under the trade name “F” around 2013, and Defendant C served as an employee of Defendant B.

C. Around January 15, 2013, E drafted a sub-lease contract with Defendant B on a one-year basis with the Ulsan-gu G factory building leased by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant factory”) located in Ulsan-gu G (hereinafter “instant sub-lease”) (hereinafter “instant sub-lease”) and on a one-year basis with Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, witness E and H respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. First of all, the determination of the parties to the contract of the sub-lease of this case is that the sub-lease of this case is not the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless. As to whom the actor or the title holder is the party to the contract in case the actor or the title holder is a party to the contract in the name of another person, the actor or the title holder shall be decided as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the other party. If the other party does not coincide with the intent of the actor and the other party, the other party shall be decided by whether the other party should understand the person among the actor and the title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the detailed circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31990, Sept. 6, 2007). As seen above, the contract (Evidence No. 1) which is the dispositive document of this case is stated as the lessee, and the witness of the first instance court shall give testimony to the purport.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 9. 6. 선고 2007다31990 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.12.20 2018나60366

-대구지방법원상주지원 2017.06.07 2016가단1006

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.02.20 2018가단67643

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.22 2018나16378

-수원지방법원 2015.06.25 2014나41251