(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단202665

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단202665

자동차인도

Text

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

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

3...

Reasons

1. According to the following facts which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the instant automobile was terminated on June 15, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the automobile of this case to the plaintiff.

(1) On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on KRW 42 months, monthly rent of KRW 1,614,83 with respect to the instant motor vehicle as indicated in the separate sheet, and delivered the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant.

According to the terms and conditions applicable to the lease agreement of this case, the defendant shall return the vehicle to the plaintiff at the expiration date of the lease term and the termination date of the contract where the contract is terminated due to the expiration of the lease term, the rescission and the termination date.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall possess the instant motor vehicle on November 17, 2015 and deliver it to the enforcement officer entrusted by the obligee” on November 6, 2005. Article 202(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall possess the instant motor vehicle as indicated in the separate sheet and deliver it to the enforcement officer by the obligee,” and Article 205(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall have the automobile returned to the Plaintiff on November 6, 2005, without returning the key to the Plaintiff and without returning the key to the Plaintiff’s parking lot.”

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to have delivered the instant vehicle to the plaintiff, so it is difficult to view that the defendant voluntarily delivered the instant vehicle to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it in light of the following: (a) the defendant's argument that the instant vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff; and (b) the process of the decision and execution of the provisional disposition

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is followed.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나50084

-의정부지방법원 2017.07.14 2017가단2298

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.25 2016나18776

-수원지방법원 2015.09.10 2014나44601

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.15 2015나18397