(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단19643

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단19643

자동차인도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet;

B. 19,038.

Reasons

Since the issues of the main lawsuit and the counterclaim are the same, they will live together.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that provides automobile rental services.

As of July 14, 2014, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to lease KRW 59,500 (including value-added tax, and monthly rent is KRW 545,00) monthly rent from July 22, 2014 to July 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant siren contract”) for 48 months (hereinafter “instant siren contract”), and the lessee of the instant vehicle.

B. According to the instant siren contract, where the Defendant remains unpaid even once a monthly rent, the instant siren contract may be terminated after the Plaintiff’s peremptory notice was given within a reasonable period. In such cases, the Defendant bears the obligation to return the vehicle from the time of termination to the time of return of the vehicle (monthly rent / 30) x the number of days elapsed x 200%).

C. The Defendant did not pay monthly rent under the instant siren contract, and the Plaintiff, on the grounds that monthly rent was unpaid as of March 26, 2015, expressed a peremptory notice of payment and the intent to demand the return of the vehicle at the time of unpaid rent, and reached the Defendant, and the Defendant continues to neglect the obligation to pay monthly rent even after the above highest intention, and eventually, the Plaintiff expressed an intention to terminate the instant siren contract as of June 16, 2015 and delivered to the Defendant.

Even after receipt of the above declaration of intention, the defendant does not pay monthly rent and does not return the automobile in this case.

As a result, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2015Dada415472) while reporting the instant vehicle as a substitute vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment of this court

A. The plaintiff, as the lawsuit of this case, is among the legal relations after the termination of the siren contract of this case.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.12 2016고단5235

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.06.21 2017가단20756

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.07 2014나25190

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.31 2016가단5058655

-수원지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나12117