beta
Text
1. Defendant A and B jointly share KRW 145,200,000 to the Plaintiff and Defendant A with respect thereto from February 17, 2014 to December 22, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased MTC facilities (product names: VM960L, manufacturing number: VM960L, 20160, 2010 formula; hereinafter “instant machinery”) at KRW 187,00,000 (including value-added tax) from the gardening in which the Plaintiff engages in wholesale and retail business of machinery and parts.
B. On June 1, 2012, Defendant A leased from the Plaintiff the instant machinery and the articles indicated in the table of the attached section (hereinafter “instant section”) from the Plaintiff at KRW 3,482,480, monthly rent from June 1, 2012 to July 15, 2013.
C. Defendant A installed the instant machinery and tools in F factories located in E 2Ma 102 at the time of Siging, and used them in F factories, and moved the instant machinery and tools into H factories operated by Defendant B, who is located in Sigsung-si, on July 15, 2013 without the Plaintiff’s consent.
After that, on February 17, 2014, Defendant A sold the instant machinery in KRW 145,200,000 to I who is a seller of used machinery without the Plaintiff’s consent.
[Judgment of the court below] The plaintiff and defendant A: The plaintiff 1 to 3 and the plaintiff 1 to 7 (which include each number of numbers), each of the items of evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and Nos. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. On February 17, 2014, while Defendant A leased and used the instant machinery from the Plaintiff, Defendant A sold the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff to I in KRW 145,200,000 without the Plaintiff’s consent. (2) Defendant A was prosecuted for committing an offense that he/she arbitrarily disposed of and embezzled the instant machinery kept by the Plaintiff for the purpose of the Plaintiff. On June 17, 2015, the court of first instance convicted Defendant A of embezzlement and sentenced Defendant A for six months (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Kadan2026), and the said case is still pending in the appellate trial.
3. Accordingly, Defendant A arbitrarily disposes of the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff.