(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.01.16 2012가합692

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) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.01.16 2012가합692

유체동산인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the intervention by the Plaintiff is the Intervenor joining the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around July 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the steel bars and sn beam beam lines necessary for the new construction of a parking lot to the supplementary intervenor (hereinafter “the supplementary intervenor”) from October 17, 2008 to December 31, 2010 (hereinafter “instant supply contract”), and the Defendant agreed with the supplementary intervenor to produce and install the said parking lot by using the steel bars and sn beam lines supplied by the Plaintiff.

B. The Intervenor paid KRW 4,93,400,000 to the Plaintiff based on the instant supply contract from July 2008 to April 29, 2010, but the Plaintiff did not supply the steel bars and sloping beams equivalent to the price of the goods, and the construction was suspended around April 2010.

C. As the Corporation ceased, the Defendant also keeps part of the steel bars and sn beam beams supplied by the Plaintiff for the manufacture of parking lots in a state that the Intervenor was not supplied to the Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap or 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The steel bars and sn beamlines indicated in the attached list currently kept by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant movable”) are the Plaintiff’s goods upon the Plaintiff’s request, and their owner is the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff.

B. Of the instant movables, the “sn beam beamline 606 x 201” is owned by the Defendant as goods purchased from the Defendant’s sexual integrated construction, which are owned by the Defendant. The remainder of the steel bars and the sn beam beamline are the goods owned by the Intervenor, and they occupy the Defendant as an exercise of the right of retention to preserve the current personnel expenses claim amounting to KRW 493,676,230. Thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Defendant’

C. The Intervenor’s Intervenor is based on the instant supply contract to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2013.05.10 2012고단3503

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.02.05 2014가단117489

-서울동부지방법원 2014.09.16 2012가합103835

-광주지방법원 2021.04.27 2020가단519654

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2015.02.13 2013고합183