(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2016.12.08 2015가단14079

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2016.12.08 2015가단14079

유체동산인도

Text

1. The Defendants jointly deliver the machines and instruments listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A on the machines and instruments listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machines and instruments”).

(hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On November 13, 2013, 201, 36 months, 75,000,442,100 CNC Group on October 28, 2013 (Attached Table 2, 37,000, 376,300 of CNC Line’s 24 months, 24 months, 37,000,000, 376,300

B. The instant lease contract concluded a contract for acquisition by transfer with the content that Defendant A transferred the instant machinery and apparatus to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transfer and acquisition agreement”), and concluded a new contract with the Plaintiff by way of SLB (SB) and Lese Bk (hereinafter “instant transfer and acquisition agreement”).

C. According to the instant lease agreement, if the payment of the rent was delayed on more than two consecutive occasions, the lessee would lose the benefit of time, and the lessee would be able to terminate the lease agreement. The Defendant A lost the benefit of time due to the delayed payment of the rent under the instant lease agreement at least twice.

On the other hand, Defendant B currently occupies the instant machinery and apparatus.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of claim, as Defendant A did not pay the lease fees set forth in the instant lease agreement more than twice, the termination right of the instant lease was created to the Plaintiff, and the copy of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination was delivered to Defendant A, and the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated at that time.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant A is both the parties to the instant lease agreement and the indirect possessor, and Defendant B is jointly and severally obligated to deliver the instant machines and instruments to the Plaintiff as the direct possessor.

3. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.08.25 2015가단208418

-수원지방법원 2017.06.20 2016가단543330

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.07 2016가합524918

-전주지방법원남원지원 2019.10.16 2019가단13

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나34809