(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.20 2016가단543330

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.20 2016가단543330

유체동산인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a specialized credit finance business company, the business purpose of which is personal credit loans, facility leasing businesses, etc.

B. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (the representative director C; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the attached list of movables (the acquisition cost of KRW 190 million; hereinafter “instant machinery”) (hereinafter “instant machinery”).

C. However, on September 2, 2016, the non-party company failed to pay the lease fees under the instant lease agreement at least twice, and the Plaintiff notified the non-party company that the instant lease agreement is terminated if the non-party company did not pay the rental fees in arrears under the instant lease agreement.

In addition, the non-party company did not pay the overdue rent, and at present, the machinery of this case is occupied and used by the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated, and the defendant occupies and uses the machinery of this case without any title.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the substantial party that entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff is the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(Y) (Order, even if so, the fact that the rent was overdue is identical, and the termination of the lease contract of this case was lawfully made, the defendant must deliver the instant machinery to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant comprehensively acquired the business of the non-party company from the non-party company, and occupied the instant machinery lawfully, and continued to pay the rent.

However, according to the lease contract of this case, the sublet of the machinery of this case.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.05.20 2014가합49152

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.27 2015가단5332295

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.01.26 2015가단34929

-서울북부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단126275

-수원지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가단136094