logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.10 2017가단3767
소유권인수절차이행 등
Text

1. On December 2016, 2016, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on a motor boat listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around May 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell motor boats listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vessel”) at KRW 50 million with the Plaintiff verbally.

B. Around July 2015, the instant vessel was sunken without the Defendant’s acceptance, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to accept the instant vessel within the limit of KRW 50 million, instead of cancelling the sales contract.

C. On August 2015, the Plaintiff was towing the instant vessel and entrusted the repair of the instant vessel to C, a vessel repair business operator, around August 2015.

The Defendant entrusted D with the interior remodeling of the instant vessel during the repair process of the instant vessel, and carried out construction works.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid the following money to the acquisition cost of the instant vessel and the internal remodeling cost.

The amount paid on June 30, 2015 to the recipient of the payment date: 5,00,000 E on June 30, 2015; 7,000,000 E on July 29, 2016; 3,000,000 E on July 30, 2016; 2,000,000 D on August 27, 2015; 10,000 C on August 28, 2016; 00,000 or 00,00 or 00 D on September 16, 2015; 10,000 D on September 10, 200; 30,000 C; 10,000 C; 10,000 C; 10,003, Oct. 10, 200; 16, 2016;

D. C completed repair of the instant vessel on or around December 2016, and the Defendant, on December 18, 2016, caused a breakdown in one engine while acquiring and operating the instant vessel.

Since then, the Plaintiff requested C to repair the engine of the instant vessel and paid the repair cost of KRW 2 million on January 4, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 11 evidence (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On December 18, 2016, after the completion of repair of the instant vessel, the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff, finally confirmed the instant vessel by the repair business entity run by C, and the Defendant.

arrow