logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.15 2015가단111983
유체동산인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on the instant automobile and operated the instant automobile upon delivery.

After that, the Plaintiff transferred D (C) the instant vehicle operation authority to D (C) and D operated the instant vehicle.

On June 27, 2014, D delivered to Defendant B, who is an employee of the Marshall, CD-ROM (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) Co., Ltd., a motor vehicle E300 (registration number E).

The reason for the delivery of a motor vehicle was that the defendant company intended to sell a motor vehicle to a third party.

The terms of the contract that entrusts the sale of a motor vehicle were that the cost of the sale of the said motor vehicle (such as storage charge, maintenance, clinic, etc.) was borne by the truster and the lease fee of the said motor vehicle was borne by the defendant company.

(No. 7-2) On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered to Defendant B, who is an employee of the Defendant Company, a motor vehicle benz E350 (registration number F).

The reason for delivery was that the defendant company intended to sell the above vehicle to a third party.

(No. 9-2) September 23, 2014, D delivered the instant automobile to Defendant B, an employee of the Defendant Company.

The reason for delivery is that the Defendant Company succeeds to the status of the lessee who is accurately selling the instant vehicle to a third party.

was intended to have had been sought.

The terms of the contract to which the automobile sales contract was entrusted are the part necessary for the sale of the automobile of this case (storage fees, maintenance, clinic, etc.) shall be borne by the truster, and the lease fees of the automobile of this case shall be borne by the defendant company.

The statement No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4 is written that D and the defendant company bear 50% each, but there is no dispute between the parties or subparagraph 3 (the amount paid) with respect to the fact that the defendant company bears the full amount of the lease fees after the rent.

arrow