(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나34710

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 2014.12.19 2014나34710

보관료

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The defendant's judgment as to this safety defense is based on the following facts: since the parties to the storage contract of this case are not the defendant but the non-party C, the lawsuit of this case, for which the plaintiff seeks storage fees pursuant to the custody contract of this case against the defendant, is alleged to be unlawful against the non-party entitled to be the defendant; however, in the performance lawsuit, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2010, the Defendant delegated the delivery duty of 101-dong 607 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the law firm D, where Nonparty C had worked as the head of the team.

B. On September 30, 2010, a real estate delivery execution (Seoul Eastern District Court 2010Du32420) was made against the debtor F with the real estate delivery execution (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2010Du3274) against the apartment of this case with the debtor F as the executive title. C participated in the execution and was delivered the apartment of this case by the defendant's agent.

C. On September 30, 2010, C entered into a cargo storage consignment contract (hereinafter “instant storage contract”) with the Plaintiff on the goods shipped out of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant goods”) from September 30, 2010 to October 29, 2010, with a storage charge of KRW 250,000,000 for storage, transportation charges of KRW 250,000,000,000,000 for personnel expenses, and the total amount of KRW 7,000,000 for storage operated by the Plaintiff. After the expiration of the storage agency, C stored the goods in the storage and the automatic storage period of which is extended due to the non-delivery of the storage, and the storage fees therefrom are to be settled monthly (hereinafter “instant storage agreement”).

Under the storage contract of this case, the Plaintiff is keeping the goods of this case until now.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination on the merits were concluded by C on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant concluded the instant storage contract on October 201.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.10.30 2013가단17588

-서울남부지방법원 2014.10.31 2014가단42107

-전주지방법원 2017.08.29 2015가단32426

-창원지방법원 2015.06.03 2014나9261

-수원지방법원 2020.06.17 2018가단555375