(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.10 2017가단26214

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 2018.05.10 2017가단26214

동산인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the movable property listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a siren agreement to lend movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to the Defendant for a period of 48 months, 7,6140,000 won, monthly sirens, and KRW 4,467,00 (hereinafter “instant contract”). Article 12(1)1 of the instant contract (hereinafter “instant termination clause”) provides that “When the Defendant delays the payment of the rental fee at one time, the Plaintiff shall notify the Defendant of the payment by fixing a period of not less than 14 days, and if the Defendant fails to comply therewith, the Defendant shall lose the benefit of the period, and the Plaintiff may terminate the instant contract.”

B. From around 2015 to several times, the Plaintiff issued a peremptory notice to the Defendant on June 29, 2017 to pay the rental fee by content-certified mail.

C. Nevertheless, if the Defendant did not pay the rental fee in arrears, the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint to this court containing the content that “the termination of the instant contract pursuant to the instant termination clause,” and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant on August 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the grounds set forth in the termination clause of the instant case arose because the Defendant did not pay the rental fee even after the Plaintiff’s demand for the payment of the rental fee.

As the Plaintiff terminated the contract of this case on the ground of the termination as above, it may seek the return of the instant machine owned by itself, and accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to return the instant machine to the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.07.09 2019나2559

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.06 2015가합20624

-대구지방법원김천지원 2016.11.09 2016가단31967

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가단105003

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.07.16 2015가단2006