logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.09 2016가단206618
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff KRW 23,454,950 and Defendant B from October 16, 2015 to June 16, 2016.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with one Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “One Capital”) and EMW320d Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicles”) and operated the instant motor vehicle from around that time.

B. On July 20, 2015, Defendant C had the Plaintiff acquire the instant automobile from the Plaintiff while mediating the succession of the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant C and B on the part of the broker between Defendant C and Defendant D to succeed to the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant D to pay the remainder of KRW 18,454,950 after deducting the purchase price of the instant vehicle from KRW 23,454,950, such as the lease fee of the instant vehicle, from KRW 23,454,950 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Defendant C and B guaranteed the obligation under the instant agreement.

Accordingly, on September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,000,000 among the above KRW 18,454,950 on September 9, 2015 to Defendant B who represented Defendant D, and KRW 17,454,950 on October 14, 2015 respectively.

E. However, Defendant D was unable to succeed to the instant lease agreement from Han Capital due to low credit rating, and the instant automobile was left alone on the street with no major components destroyed.

Therefore, on June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to the instant lease agreement on the grounds of one capital and the redemption before maturity.

F. The Defendants did not properly implement the instant agreement, but had the Plaintiff conclude the instant agreement by deceiving the Plaintiff as if the instant agreement were to be implemented properly.

Accordingly, if the agreement of this case was properly implemented, the Plaintiff could be exempted from the liability of KRW 23,454,950, such as the lease fee of the instant vehicle from one Capital, if it had been discharged, but did not properly implement the agreement.

arrow