2014Da31639 Return of sales proceeds, etc.

A

B

Changwon District Court Decision 2013Na342 Decided April 16, 2014

June 23, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether lease deposit should be settled

On October 15, 2009, the court below concluded a lease use contract between 5,00,000 won and 16,000,000 won of the instant machines from the Defendant and 10,000 won for the payment of the price, and determined that the Defendant paid 0,000 won of the instant machines to the Plaintiff on October 30, 209 after deducting the deposit money of 5,00,000 won and 36 months of lease fee, 3,688,200 won from 10,000 won from 10,000 won from 10,000 won from 10,000 won from 20,000 won from 10,000 won from 10,000 won from 10,000 won from 20,000 won from 10,000 won from 20,000 won from 30,000 won from 10,000 won from 3.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the acquisition cost of the instant No. 1 machinery as stipulated in the instant lease agreement is KRW 160 million, the lease deposit is KRW 50 million, the principal of the lease deposit is KRW 110,000,000, the lease fee is KRW 22,775,200, and the lease interest is KRW 22,775,200, and Article 1 of the terms of the instant lease agreement provides that the Plaintiff shall take over the instant machinery No. 1 at the expiration of the lease term.

In light of these circumstances, the lease deposit is only appropriated for the acquisition price of the instant No. 1 machinery at the expiration of the lease term, and it is not returned to the lessee or offset with the remainder of the lease. Therefore, it seems that the lease deposit was extinguished by the acquisition of the instant machinery from the Defendant, who transferred the status of the lessee from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, while taking over the instant machinery No. 1 from the social society that ever occurred.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the remaining Defendant should return the deposit to the Plaintiff, which was erroneous by misapprehending that the deposit would be returned upon expiration of the lease term or would be appropriated for the remaining lease fee. In so doing, the lower court erred by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. All of the allegations in the grounds of appeal as to the remaining amount of settlement are nothing more than pointing out the cooking or fact-finding of evidence belonging to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, which is a fact-finding court, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the judgment of the lower court in light of the records, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical

3. Conclusion

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

A person shall be appointed.