logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
대전지방법원 2017.02.03 2016나107811
장비임대료 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a lessor of a refaculation period, and the Defendant is a company ordered by the Korea Highway Corporation, which is proceeding with construction works of Section B of the Highway 9 which is ordered by the Korea Highway Corporation.

B. Around May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to lease D D D D D D D D D Dgggs to the Defendant for the Ulsan-gun C Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the Defendant’s above construction works, and the period of use shall be until June 18, 2015 (Provided, That the period of use shall be renewed on a monthly basis) and the amount used shall be KRW 29,000 per hour (based on 10 hours per day and 25 days per month), and the Defendant bears oil expenses and transportation expenses necessary for the operation of construction machinery; however, if the total period of contract maintenance is less than one month, the round-down expenses shall be borne by the Defendant; the Defendant from two months to six months to six months to the Defendant; and the Plaintiff shall be borne by the Plaintiff in the case of six months or more.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On May 19, 2015, according to the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff invested the digging pool at the construction site of this case.

However, as the construction has ceased due to the occurrence of the reason for modifying the design of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff’s excavation search work was discontinued on June 6, 2015 and resumed on September 10, 2015.

On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff collected the instant excavation machine at the construction site of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 2-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant paid only the amount calculated per hour on September 1, 2015 when the Plaintiff’s excavation season was put into three hours on September 11, 2015, and five hours on September 24, 2015. However, in the event that the excavation season was put in at least three hours on September 11, 2015, daily allowances should be paid to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant shall pay the daily allowances to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2015 and September 24, 2015, and the daily allowances should be added to the rent for more than one hour on October 2015.

arrow