(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.30 2018가단17996

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) 수원지방법원 2019.04.30 2018가단17996

임금 및 임대료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. From May 12, 2014 to January 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, was employed and served as an engineer for the search and seizure period. From July 2, 2015 to February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff leased heavy equipment to the Defendant at KRW 8 million per month.

Accordingly, 13,597,970 won and 60,196,400 won for heavy equipment, among which the Defendant paid only the rent of 41,572,110 won, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of 13,597,970 won and the unpaid rent of 18,624,290 won (=60,196,400 won - 41,572,110 won) plus 32,22,260 won.

2. Determination

A. First of all, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant employed the Plaintiff as to the part of the claim for wages, and rather, according to the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the claim is without merit, since C, which concluded a mining concession agreement with respect to the Defendant’s mining right and used a mining business for tin, can only be recognized that the Plaintiff employed the Plaintiff.

B. As to the claim for rent of heavy equipment, we examine the following.

The Plaintiff submitted a certificate Nos. 2 (B) and 3 (each tax invoice) to the Defendant as evidence that he leased heavy equipment to the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s seal affixed with each of the above evidence was affixed to the Defendant’s seal, and rather, according to the images of the evidence Nos. 6 (Attachment) and 7 (B seal), the Defendant’s seal affixed with the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 can only be recognized as a fact different from the Defendant’s seal.

Therefore, evidence Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be used as evidence, and only the statement of evidence Nos. 6 (Financial Transaction Statement) is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff leased heavy equipment to the defendant who is not C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2019.01.11 2018나1408

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.24 2018가단5277030

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.23 2015나8439

-수원지방법원여주지원 2020.12.24 2020가단1259

-울산지방법원 2018.07.19 2018가합110