logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015가단930
동산인도 등
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the construction equipment listed in the separate sheet.

2...

Reasons

In light of the fact that there is no dispute over recognition of judgment on the claim of this lawsuit, the plaintiff is the owner of the construction equipment listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the machinery of this case"), and the whole testimony and arguments of Gap 1 and Eul 12-1 through Eul 12-4, and the purport of the whole testimony and arguments of the witness Eul, the plaintiff is the owner of the construction equipment listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the machinery of this case"), and the machinery of this case is the equipment to subdivide cement. The plaintiff installed the equipment of this case from October 25, 2009 at the Y C site operated by the defendant from around December 25, 2009, after completing the construction of the above machinery of this case, and removed the file filing equipment including the machinery of this case at the construction site of this case. The defendant's on-site captain B requested the plaintiff to allow the plaintiff to continue to use the machinery of this case at the above site, and the plaintiff can immediately return the machinery of this case between the defendant and the defendant and the plaintiff to the above construction site of this case.

Judgment

According to the above facts, a loan agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the instant machinery, and as long as the plaintiff demanded the return of the instant machinery to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the plaintiff in accordance with the loan agreement for use.

The plaintiff sought delivery of the machinery with specifications similar to the machinery of this case against the defendant, but the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a loan contract for use of the machinery of this case, which is a specific object, so if it is impossible to deliver the machinery of this case, the claim for damages equivalent to the value of the machinery of this case shall be made.

arrow