logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.19 2017가단535886
건설기계 인도 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendants deliver construction machinery listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

2. Defendant C: (a) 3,219.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2014, Plaintiff A purchased construction machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from D, and completed the transfer registration of ownership in the name of Plaintiff B, a fraud of Plaintiff A, with respect to the instant machinery.

B. The Defendant Samyl Metal Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Samyl Metal”) is keeping the instant machinery from November 2015 to his domicile at the request of Defendant C.

C. Defendant C’s assertion that “Defendant C lent the said money to the Plaintiff in a manner that he pays the purchase price of KRW 25,000,000 to the seller of the instant machinery,” and the lawsuit is pending by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff A seeking the payment of the loan (2017 Ghana 21628) with the Incheon District Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Determination as to the claim cause of the instant machinery: (a) Plaintiff A purchased the instant machinery and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Plaintiff B; and (b) Defendant C occupied the instant machinery in the direct custody of the instant machinery; and (c) Defendant C indirectly occupied the instant machinery through Defendant C, as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to return the instant machinery to the Plaintiffs, the owner of the instant machinery; (b) Defendant C lent the said money to Plaintiff A by means of paying the sales price of KRW 25,00,000 to the seller of the instant machinery; (c) Defendant C was unable to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim until receiving the said money; and (d) Defendant C was in custody of the instant machinery under the agreement with the Plaintiffs, and thus, it cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim.

First of all, whether Defendant C stored the instant machinery to Defendant C Metal by mutual consent with the Plaintiffs, or not, and Defendant Chyl Metal.

arrow