(영문) 창원지방법원거창지원 2014.10.02 2012가합923

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) 창원지방법원거창지원 2014.10.02 2012가합923

유체동산인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 201, the Defendant drafted a mechanical lien agreement for manufacture (hereinafter “instant contract”) stating that “The Defendant shall purchase the instant machinery and produce the products of the Deceased, but the Defendant shall borrow the price from the Plaintiff and shall attract the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s ownership until the full payment of the price of the said machinery is made,” which includes the following: (a) the Plaintiff and the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) around January 201.

B. On August 7, 2011, the Defendant purchased the instant machinery in KRW 30 million from C (mutual name: D) and was handed over the said machinery on or around the 19th day of the same month.

C. On August 18, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Deceased. D.

On December 17, 2011, the Deceased remitted KRW 23 million to the Defendant as the purchase price of the instant machinery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 10, 14, Eul evidence 1, 10, 10, Eul evidence 1 and 10, witness E's testimony, inquiry and reply about D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion through the preparation of the contract of this case, although the plaintiff agreed to exercise ownership until the deceased paid in full, the defendant did not pay the above price to the plaintiff or the deceased. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above machinery to the plaintiff who is the owner of the machinery of this case.

3. On the other hand, in order to secure a monetary obligation, where an obligor transfers the movable property under his/her possession to the creditor, delivers it by means of possession revision, and an obligor agrees to continue to occupy it, barring any special circumstance, the ownership of such movable property is merely transferred in trust to the creditor, barring any special circumstance, and thus, in the internal relationship between the creditor and the obligor, the obligor holds the ownership, but in the external relationship between the creditor and the obligor, the obligor becomes an unentitled person who has already transferred the ownership of the movable property to the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37430, Feb. 18,

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 2. 18. 선고 2004다37430 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.05.22 2017가단111927

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.06.19 2014가단23174

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.03 2016노416

-수원지방법원 2019.01.09 2018가단526445

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.02.19 2013고정1087