logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.07.19 2016나28523
약정금
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. On January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a transit bus operation contract with Green Cross Co., Ltd., and entered the bus owned by himself (hereinafter “instant bus”) into the said company, thereby succeeding to the Defendant’s transit bus operation contract with Green Cross on January 1, 2016.

In return for the above succession of service of the plaintiff, the defendant paid the remaining installments from February 2016 among the installments that the plaintiff paid with respect to the bus of this case.

On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 7,955,184 to the Defendant’s installment payments.

In April 2016, the Plaintiff sold the instant bus to the automobile sales company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining installments of KRW 7,955,184 of the instant bus, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 9, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when the copy of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant agreed to pay the installment of the vehicle on the condition that the Plaintiff possesses the said vehicle on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff sold the said vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff at his own discretion, and therefore, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the installment after the sale. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant agreed to pay the vehicle to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff possesses the said vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

arrow