logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.22 2018나234
계약금반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Around December 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of a motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the first contract for the use of a motor vehicle”) with the content that “the Plaintiff leases from the Defendant as KRW 15,000,000 during the lease period from December 17, 2014 to December 17, 2015, the deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000, monthly user fee of KRW 250,000.”

(A) No. 1. Special terms and conditions of the First Use Agreement include the following: “The deposit of 10% discount standard within one year and the vehicle depreciation.”

The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant around the date of concluding the first-use contract, and received the said KRW 1 vehicle from the Defendant. Around that time, the Plaintiff used the first-use contract and returned the first-use vehicle to the Defendant before the expiration of the first-use contract.

On March 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, “The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of motor vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “the second contract for the use of motor vehicles”) with the Defendant setting the lease period of KRW 19,00,000, monthly user fee of KRW 380,000 from March 17, 2015 to March 17, 2016.

(Evidence A 2) In addition to the Special Agreement on Use 2, the phrase “the basis for deducting deposit by 20% within one year and the honor for vehicle depreciation” is included.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 19,00,000 to the Defendant around the date of concluding the second-use contract, and received KRW 2 from the Defendant, and on October 7, 2015, replaced the vehicle subject to the lease under the second-use contract with the Defendant with DMW645 (hereinafter “third-party vehicle”).

After December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the second use contract on the ground of the defect of the third vehicle. At that time, the Plaintiff transferred the third vehicle to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, and the purport and purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of judgment and judgment.

arrow