(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.06.30 2015가단5101

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.06.30 2015가단5101

동산 인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each movable property listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the acquisition cost of the vertical machine learning center as KRW 166,50,00,00 and KRW 3,900,360 per month of lease fees (the first 1,456,863) among the movable property listed in the attached Table.

B. After concluding the instant lease contract, the Defendant occupied and used the vertical machine learning center by receiving delivery from the Plaintiff.

C. According to the instant lease agreement, if a lessee fails to perform his/her obligation, such as a lease fee, the Plaintiff may terminate the lease agreement without any separate notice, if the lessee notified the lessee of the performance for a reasonable period and fails to comply therewith. The Plaintiff may claim the return of the object at the time of termination of the lease agreement.

In order to secure the implementation of the instant lease contract, the Defendant entered into a contract of transfer for security (hereinafter “instant transfer for security”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on two mining centers as indicated in the attached list, which is owned by the Defendant, and on one of the machine learning centers (hereinafter “instant transfer for security”).

E. Despite the Plaintiff’s demand for performance, the Defendant did not pay 94,545,805 won of the lease agreement of this case until February 27, 2015, which is the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff each movable property listed in the attached list according to the lease contract of this case and the transfer security contract of this case.

Although the defendant asserted that the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation and received an injunction, it cannot prevent the plaintiff from requesting a extradition against the defendant on the sole basis of such circumstance.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.04.03 2014가합3698

-창원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018가합52047

-전주지방법원남원지원 2019.10.16 2019가단13

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.05.07 2019가단7813

-대구지방법원의성지원 2015.08.26 2014가단1968