logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단52133
동산인도
Text

1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiff movable property listed in the separate sheet.

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

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff, the lessee, and Defendant A, the lessee, entered into a lease agreement with respect to the bareboat order (hereinafter “instant machinery”) with the lease fee of KRW 2,235,894 per month, and the lease period of KRW 48 months. Defendant A, who was handed over the said machinery from the Plaintiff around that time, established the factory of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

B. According to the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff may terminate the contract in a case where Defendant A did not pay the lease fee on two occasions.

C. On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff notified Defendant A of the termination of the contract for the reason of delinquency of the lease fee, and the above notification reached Defendant A, and at that time, Defendant A did not pay the lease fee up to four times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 29, 2016 when the notice of termination of the contract was delivered to Defendant A, and thus, the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant machinery and the lessee, and the Defendant Company as the lessee, as the lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant machinery.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow