logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.18 2017가합33365
계약유지청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 25, 2013, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lend the vehicles listed in the separate sheet at KRW 36 months, KRW 781,109, KRW 2 through KRW 773,600 for lease, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C and the Defendant to succeed to the status of C under the said lease agreement around February 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The terms and conditions included in the lease contract of this case include an agreement between the customer and the defendant when the lease contract of this case expires, and if the customer selects the disposal of motor vehicles, such as return at maturity, purchase, and re-lease, the defendant shall notify the customer in advance at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the contract, and if the customer selects re-lease at the expiration of the lease term, the contract amount shall be the remaining value of the motor vehicle at the expiration of the lease term, and the renewal terms and conditions, such as the re-lease period and the rental fee, etc.

§ 22 (c).

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the term of the instant lease agreement will expire on October 24, 2016, and requested the Plaintiff to deliver documents necessary for establishing the re-lease agreement, and notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to conclude the re-lease agreement unless the documents necessary for the re-lease agreement are sent by October 20, 2016.

On October 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to conclude a re-lease agreement, and the Defendant sent documents for the purchase of vehicles subject to the instant lease to e-mail. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the conclusion of a re-lease agreement by asserting that the address of the Defendant changed and failed to receive the documents necessary for the re-lease agreement, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible to conclude the re-lease agreement.

[Based on recognition] The facts without dispute, as described in sub-paragraphs 1 through 4, each entry number of sub-paragraphs B.

arrow