logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.09.07 2017나52214
장비임대료
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who operates the construction equipment leasing business with the trade name of D, and the defendant C is a person who actually runs the construction business with the trade name of Eul, and the defendant B is a father of the defendant C and is registered as the representative of the above E.

B. From October 5, 2015 to November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff leased one bitle (G) owned by the Plaintiff at the site of the F Apartment Construction Corporation of Sejong Special Self-Governing City (hereinafter “instant construction”) (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant equipment lease contract was concluded between H using the name of E and H with the monthly fee of KRW 8 million.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the equipment rent of KRW 12.8 million as the actual operator of E (or as the user of H).

Preliminaryly, Defendant B leased the name of E to H, and thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay the above equipment rent to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender.

B. The Defendants asserted that they had not concluded the instant equipment rental contract with the Plaintiff.

Even if H entered into the instant equipment leasing agreement with the Plaintiff under the name of H, the Plaintiff knew of such fact, and thus Defendant B does not bear the responsibility of the nominal lender.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C (main claim)

A. First, we examine whether Defendant C is the other party to the instant agreement on the lease of equipment.

1) On May 30, 2015 and June 22, 2015, before the conclusion of the instant contract for the lease of equipment, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to “E Company B” with respect to the person supplied with the instant equipment. The standard form contract for the lease of construction machinery (Evidence A No. 1 signed by Defendant C’s Dong I on the certificate No. 1, with respect to the field agent column, and H is the original office company of the instant construction.

arrow