(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.05.25 2015가단16974

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 2016.05.25 2015가단16974

유체동산인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant and the attached list (hereinafter “instant machinery”) entered into a siren lease agreement (hereinafter “instant siren lease agreement”) with the content that the Defendant would escape the Defendant by setting the rental period of KRW 36 months and KRW 7,500,000 per month, and delivered the instant machinery to the Defendant prior to the said siren agreement.

According to the terms and conditions of the instant sirens contract, when the Defendant has failed to pay the sirens more than twice, the said sirens contract is terminated. However, since the Defendant failed to pay the sirens fee, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would terminate the instant sirens contract and recover the instant machinery around January 2014, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the rental contract (Evidence A) concluded on October 28, 2013, the Defendant prepared a siren with respect to the Plaintiff and the instant machinery by setting the rental period of KRW 36 months and KRW 7,500,000 per month. According to the above contract, the ownership of the instant machinery exists in the Plaintiff, the ownership of the instant machinery is transferred to the Defendant when the rental fee is fully paid at the end of the rental period, and if the rental fee is not paid at least twice in arrears, the rental contract is terminated, and when the rental contract is terminated, the fact that the instant machinery is returned is recognized.

However, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant purchased the instant machinery from SMT and acquired the ownership of the instant machinery, and the Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on the premise that the instant machinery is owned by the Plaintiff is not reasonable.

① A who substantially operates B, around April 1, 2013, owns ownership of KRW 289,422,50 with respect to the medical devices of 21 type, including the instant machines, to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.30 2019가합589886

-수원지방법원 2019.02.13 2017나88213

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.01.11 2017가단3553

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.07.25 2019가단15016

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.23 2013가단224159