(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.22 2015가단112306

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) 청주지방법원 2016.06.22 2015가단112306

동산인도 등

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In November 2013, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: “Around November 2013, the Defendant offered to the Plaintiff the proposal that “I would like to find a person who seeks to sell C’s forest, and then would have contributed to the difference between million won and at least several hundred million won, if I would resell C’s forest by purchasing C’s forest, etc.”

The Plaintiff believed this, from November 2013 to December 201 of the same year, delivered 45 million won to the Defendant on several occasions. The Defendant purchased art products in the attached list, such as C’s 4 width forest, D’s chines, D’s flus flus flus fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat, and

The defendant did not resell the above art works for a period of more than one year, and the plaintiff demanded the return of the above art works, thereby locked without being contacted by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is an investor who invested in the full amount of the purchase fund for the said art works and a partner with the purchase and resale of the said art works, and is the legitimate owner of the said art works. The Plaintiff may seek delivery of the said art works to the Defendant who concealed the said art works and refused a legitimate demand for return. If the delivery is impossible, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff with the claim for partial payment of damages equivalent to the market price of the instant art works.

B. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant offered the Plaintiff a proposal as alleged by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff offered the amount of KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff as a fund for purchasing art works according to the proposal, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without examining the remainder of the issue.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.15. 선고 2012가합538575 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.23 2014가합519516

-서울고등법원 2015.4.15.선고 2013나2024236 판결

-청주지방법원 2017.02.02 2016가합537

-대전고등법원 2014. 09. 04. 선고 2014누10453 판결