(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2014나71384

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 2015.10.14 2014나71384

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

Reasons

1. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the supply and use of a credit card device (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for the lease of the instant device”) with the Defendant, providing the Defendant with a credit card terminal and its ancillary services (a credit card network service for inquiry, settlement approval, etc. through the credit card terminal provided by the Plaintiff, and so-called VN service).

The main contents of the instant terminal lease contract are as follows.

Section 2: Ownership of the goods under this Agreement shall be owned by the plaintiff, and the right to use shall be vested in the defendant.

Paragraph 1 of Article 4: The defendant shall not suspend the use of the products installed by the plaintiff within 36 months, replace the products of another company with the products of another company and guarantee them as this Agreement.

Article 8:In case the defendant's replacement with another company's product or additional installation within the contract period, serious breach of contract is required, so two compensation should be made immediately for the value of the product.

(b) At this time, the defendant must return leased goods.

If the return of goods is impossible due to loss, damage, etc. of leased goods, the price of the goods leased shall be compensated.

The product value (value-added) of leased goods: one credit card device, one 50,000 won, one 240,000 won, one 2220,000 won, and 36 months (total 1,802,000 won) of the fee by radio-muff, and 22,000 won of the fee by radio-muff. On the other hand, the Defendant installed another company’s product around July, 2013, within the aforementioned period of obligation agreement, and notified the Plaintiff that he would no longer use the Plaintiff’s credit card device at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the contents of the contract to lease the instant device as seen earlier and the Defendant’s violation of the contract, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.10 2015가단63365

-서울남부지방법원 2015.05.28 2014나52600

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나25760

-인천지방법원 2017.06.09 2016가단252453

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.05 2019나50801