logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.10.24 2017가단53271
유체동산인도
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. The fact that the Plaintiff was the wife of Defendant C, and the fact that Defendant C, as the actual manager of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), has established and occupied the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the movable property of this case”) in the vicinity of the Defendant Company’s building, does not dispute between the parties.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff, around 2008, did not have the ability to keep the instant movable at the time of importing Indonesia, and thus, the Defendant C entered into an agreement on the storage of the said movable property with Defendant C, and agreed to return the said movable property at any time upon the Plaintiff’s request, thereby terminating the said agreement and seeking the return thereof

However, since the Defendants agreed to return the instant movable property to the Plaintiff around January 2017, they seek implementation of the agreement.

B. The instant movable property is jointly purchased by the Plaintiff and Defendant C, and is jointly owned with one-half shares.

The procedure for the settlement of the above defendant's share should first be implemented.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances found by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the witness witness witness D's testimony and pleading, i.e., the defendant company may expect that the movable property of this case can be helpful for the defendant company's business when it was installed in the vicinity of the defendant company's building, and the plaintiff owned a considerable amount of tin (the plaintiff appears to have owned 3,00 points, 300 points, dumptos, dumptos, dumptos, etc.). The plaintiff could have difficulty in securing a storage place due to the above circumstances. The defendant's assertion that the defendant secured the storage place could have provided the movable property of this case for the purpose of developing and supplying hot spring water, hot spring bath business, and other auxiliary business (A. 3).

arrow