logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.26 2016나69840
사용료
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The parties asserted 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she paid the rent of the construction machinery from January 6, 2012 to Nov. 28, 2012, Nov. 28, 2012, to Nov. 12, 2012, to Feb. 4, 2015, 200, at Gai-si, from Apr. 15, 2013 to Jun. 15, 2013, at Gai-si, from Jun. 16, 2013 to Oct. 3, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff rent of construction machinery to the Defendant for the total rent of KRW 13,64,35,00,00 as follows, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the construction machinery rent of KRW 50,00,00 among the construction machinery rent of KRW 13,60,00 (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s delayed rent of construction machinery.”).

B. Determination: (1) Part IV of the tax invoice stating the Plaintiff’s use fees for each construction machinery specified in the above table as transaction item is issued to the Defendant; (2) the Defendant issued the tax invoice to the construction business operator at the actual use of the above construction machinery; and (3) The Plaintiff and the construction business operator at the actual use of the above construction machinery is a company without mutual amnesty. There is no dispute between the parties.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the owner who leased the above construction machinery from the plaintiff shall be deemed the defendant.

In other words, the Plaintiff’s transaction account book is indicated as “C” operated by the Defendant by the business partner at the scene of the party, the party, the party, the party, and the party.

② It is somewhat somewhat unreasonable that the Plaintiff directly leased high-priced construction machinery without taking measures such as securing his/her personal information or security against construction business operators at the scene of Jinjin, Jinsan, and Pyeongtaek-si without face-to-face identification.

arrow