(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.11.25 2015가단4593

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.11.25 2015가단4593

철파랫트 임대료 및 멸실료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting forth Article 1,559 as KRW 75 per day on which the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff and delivered it to the Defendant.

However, the defendant did not pay the above rent to the plaintiff until now and did not return it. Article 427 of the above steel patht was lost.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff rent and the total amount of 83,075,785 won (= rent of 53,185,785 won) and delay damages (29,890,000 won).

B. Although the instant lease contract was concluded under the Defendant’s name, the actual contractual party is a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) that is not the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such fact.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the Defendant is a party to the instant lease agreement.

2. The facts that the instant lease agreement was concluded in the name of the original party and the Defendant do not conflict between the parties.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the parties to the instant lease agreement were B and the Defendant was merely the nominal owner, and the Plaintiff was aware of such facts. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was no dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff was aware of each of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 2-6, 8, 12, and 16 (including each number).

In this respect, it is difficult to accept the claim of this case premised on the fact that the party to the instant lease agreement is the defendant.

① The Defendant, who had been engaged in a warehouse business, constructed a warehouse on three parcels, F in the late half of the year 2013, and promoted the transfer of the warehouse and the Defendant itself. The same applies to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가단35696

-대전지방법원공주지원 2017.06.22 2016가단1044

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.04.27 2018가단2157

-수원지방법원 2016.09.09 2015가합61982

-광주지방법원 2019.05.31 2016가합55136