(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.03.31 2020나27183

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) 서울동부지방법원 2021.03.31 2020나27183

리스료

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff entered into an automobile lease agreement under the name of the Defendant, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to pay the rent, and concluded a financial lease agreement with C on February 25, 2016 with D (E) with respect to the monthly rent of KRW 1,784,198.

As a party to the above contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 129,314,374 in total to the said company from March 25, 2016 to October 11, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 118,414,374, excluding the remainder of KRW 10,900,000, which was already paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant will request the plaintiff to conclude the automobile lease contract and pay the lease fee to the plaintiff.

There is no promise.

Rather, with the Defendant’s mother’s request, the Plaintiff gave the said automobile as gift to the Defendant, and the money deposited to H was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account under the name of lease. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as a rent for automobile, but the Defendant was subject to a disposition that there was no suspicion.

2. First of all, comprehensively taking account of the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 4, it is recognized that the Defendant: (a) caused an accident that caused the Defendant to shock the signal pole while driving the above vehicle around 07:00 on June 8, 2016; and (b) the Defendant remitted KRW 10,900,000 in total to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff on May 22, 2016, respectively.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mother were de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto marital relations, and that the amount of money transferred by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s account is different from the monthly rent agreed upon, each of the above facts alone is that the Plaintiff would request the Defendant to conclude a car lease contract and pay rent to the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that the promise has been committed, and otherwise, it is recognized.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.08.18 2019나31105

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.13 2016가단100752

-청주지방법원 2015.10.22 2015가단915

-청주지방법원 2015.10.22 2014가단19394

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.21 2014가합54912