logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.20 2017나22089
손해배상
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. On January 2014, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a construction machinery lease agreement with D under the name of the Plaintiff and supplied construction machinery from D to the construction site of the E-high school located in Incheon Strengthening Gun without the Plaintiff’s permission, but failed to pay the fees.

As the Plaintiff subrogated to D for construction machinery usage fee of KRW 22 million on behalf of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement equivalent to the above amount against the Defendants.

The Defendants are obligated to pay to each Plaintiff the indemnity of KRW 22 million and damages for delay.

2. We examine whether the Plaintiff paid the Defendants a fee of KRW 22 million to D for construction machinery usage fees on behalf of the Defendants.

In full view of the purport of arguments in Gap evidence 1 (the plaintiff asserted that the document was forged because it was not involved in the preparation of the above document, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge it only by the statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1 and 6, the school foundation F entered into a contract for construction work with the plaintiff on December 9, 2013 with respect to "E High School Teachers Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Yelim Construction")" (hereinafter "the construction of this case"), and entered into a contract for construction work of this case with the plaintiff around January 3, 2014 to pay rent Nos. 62,150,000 for the file construction of this case among the construction machinery of this case to 30,000,0000 won after completion of construction work with the plaintiff's actual manager's consent, the defendants concluded a subcontract with the plaintiff on February 26, 2014.

arrow