(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나1847 | 리걸엔진

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) 제주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나1847

장비임대료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of leasing equipment with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in the business of leasing equipment with the trade name of “D.”

B. On April 7, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for metal works, such as windows, etc., among “F Corporation” (hereinafter “instant construction works”) implemented in Seocho-si E (hereinafter “the instant construction works”), and for sex plant (hereinafter “save plant”) from the original contractor, and the sathethyl (hereinafter “save plant”) from the original contractor.

C. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff leased a vehicle for filing a complaint at the instant construction site over a total of 11 times from May 14, 2015 to June 20, 2015, and supported work, such as creative installation. Accordingly, the rent to be paid by the Plaintiff is KRW 4,400,000 (=40,000 x 11).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above rent as the subject of the instant lease agreement.

As to this, the defendant asserts that only he arranged a lease agreement with the plaintiff on the side of the main contractor and subcontractor of the instant construction, the scarb plant, and the sabaethyl (hereinafter referred to as the "unsaba comprehensive construction, etc.") and that the defendant did not lease it as the contractor.

3. In full view of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the subject of the instant lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is the defendant, and it is insufficient to reject the above facts of recognition only with the descriptions stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3.

① The Plaintiff, even before the instant construction works, also at the request of the Defendant, shall lease the vehicle for accusation.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2017.01.26 2016나912

-서울남부지방법원 2017.07.14 2016나60155

-부산지방법원 2015.05.21 2014가합51889

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나65225

-청주지방법원 2018.06.15 2017나3124