(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단22931

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) 광주지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단22931

유체동산인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On April 26, 2012, while operating an agency that sells households in the second floor in the second floor in Seo-gu in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff to sell each movable property in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant movable property”) to the Defendant in the purchase price of KRW 3,470,000 (a contract deposit of KRW 100,000) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 100,000,000, and said that the Plaintiff would immediately deposit the remainder of the household upon delivery of each of the instant movable property to an apartment complex located in the time when the instant sales contract was concluded. Since then, even if the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant movable property to the apartment designated by the Defendant, the Defendant deposited only KRW 200,000, and did not pay the remainder of the household price

As above, the defendant purchased a household on credit and had no intent or ability to pay the household price, thereby deceiving the plaintiff as if he were to pay the household price, and received each of the instant movables from the plaintiff. This constitutes fraud, and each of the instant movables constitutes stolens, and thus, the plaintiff constitutes the owner of each of the instant movables.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant movables to the plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant movables.

2. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, as if he were to pay the price of a household with the intention of unlawful acquisition, by deceiving the Plaintiff as if he had no intention or ability to pay the price of a household, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, each of the movables of this case cannot be deemed to constitute the ownership of the Plaintiff as stolen property.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.09.04 2014노3768

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.07 2014나61899

-인천지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단45835

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.01.11 2012고단5716

-대전지방법원 2014.11.25 2014고단647