logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2012.03.30 2011가단80118
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's arguments are asserted as follows.

“The Plaintiff leased the construction equipment owned by the Plaintiff from March 31, 2008 to October 18, 2008 to the Defendant, who has been awarded a contract for the construction project for the construction project of a new factory site by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd... The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction equipment rent of KRW 30 million issued by the Defendant and Nonparty D (State) as the construction equipment rent from E in real operation of the Defendant and Nonparty D, and the due date on December 26, 2008; one promissory note with the payment place as the office of the Daegu Bank, Daegu Bank, and KRW 645,00,000,000 for the construction equipment rent; however, the said note was refused to pay the construction equipment rent; and the E does not pay the agreed rent. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction equipment rent of KRW 36,450,00,000, which is unpaid to the Plaintiff.”

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1-4 of the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 4, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D (ju), E, and F, the representative director of the Defendant, to claim construction cost, etc. (Tgu District Court 201Gadan80118) before filing the lawsuit in this case, and is a party to a construction equipment lease contract for the Defendant, and is the same company as D in substance as D for the Defendant, and is the same company for the Defendant, from March 31, 2008 to October 18, 2008, the construction equipment rental fee of 36,450,000 won, loans 15,000,000 won, and loans 51,450,000,000 won, and both of the Plaintiff’s claims for construction equipment construction site construction site construction from the above court on Jan. 19, 2010 to 201.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, not D (ju), is a contracting party to a construction equipment rental contract, and sought a payment of the construction equipment rental fee of KRW 36,450,00.

arrow