(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2019.09.18 2018가단116178

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) 부산지방법원서부지원 2019.09.18 2018가단116178

유체동산인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

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

3...

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the entire arguments, the Plaintiff purchased one machine from C Co., Ltd. (V-MT KF 5600, hereinafter “instant machine”) from around July 10, 2018 and installed the said machine in the factory located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City. The fact that the Defendant currently occupies the instant machine is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by purchasing the instant machinery from C Co., Ltd. and receiving it.

Therefore, the defendant who possesses the machinery of this case has a duty to deliver it to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the machinery of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that "the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case unless the procedure for settlement of accounts for the same kind of business, including the machinery of this case, is not completed, since the defendant entered into an agreement on the same business with the factory and the vehicle to jointly operate the business of manufacturing the pressure components at the ratio of 3:7."

According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading of evidence No. 3, the plaintiff was recognized as having occupied and used the defendant and the above factory by leasing it from the defendant around July 2018 to the Busan Gangseo-gu D factory in which the defendant leased from the non-party E.

However, solely based on the foregoing circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that a partnership agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the above agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the machinery of this case falls under the same business property is based on the premise.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.01.26 2015가합24192

-창원지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가합31431

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2019.05.08 2018고단2518

-창원지방법원 2015.06.10 2015고단469

-부산지방법원 2014.08.13 2013가합45702