logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.08.13 2020나42095
보증금반환
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 defendant is a person who recruited land owners and arranged the purchase of vehicles and jobs while operating the company C, and the plaintiff is a land owner owner.

B. On September 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a trucking vehicle and prepared a consignment management contract, and the said contract was unfolded without stating the column for a trucking business operator (i.e., a company involved).

C. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract of carriage with D Co., Ltd. and the term of the contract from October 4, 2016 to October 4, 2017 (one year) with respect to the carriage of china, with the effect that the contract is automatically extended when the Plaintiff is disqualified.

However, from October 4, 2016 to October 6, 2016, the carriage was suspended for about three days, and the plaintiff was not paid any transportation charge.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 21,00,000 to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant money”), and KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant’s account on October 19, 2016, and KRW 3,000,000 on January 11, 2017, and KRW 3,000,000 on March 5, 2017, and KRW 2,000,000 on April 27, 2017, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid the instant money from the Defendant to the Defendant, but the Defendant failed to comply with the promise.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 11,00,000,000 not yet returned to the Plaintiff, among the instant money KRW 21,00,000,000, and damages for delay.

B. The instant money was not a security deposit, but a payment for cargo transport consulting.

In addition, the defendant introduced multiple jobs outside of the carriage of cargo to the plaintiff, and to this end, the defendant delivered a considerable amount of money to the side of the transportation company.

Therefore, the Plaintiff.

arrow