(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.09.16 2014가단3992

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.09.16 2014가단3992

장비인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the equipment listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 38,084,420 and its amount shall be August 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 4, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) determined and leased the instant equipment owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from June 2012 to May 2013 (the Plaintiff transferred the instant equipment to the Defendant at the end of June 2012; (b) the instant lease period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013; and (c) the place of use was determined and leased as KRW 3.5 million (excluding value-added tax) per month from the date of lease of the instant equipment owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (the Plaintiff transferred the instant equipment to the Defendant at the end of June 2012).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease”). The instant lease agreement provides that “When equipment is additionally used at the same site due to the Defendant’s circumstances, it shall be subject to re-consultation and a separate contract.”

B. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant stating that “If the instant lease term is up to May 2013, the monthly rent of the instant lease is increased by 8,800,000 won at the market price, the Plaintiff would immediately return the instant equipment.”

As to this, the plaintiff who is not the defendant's answer has sent a notice to the defendant requesting the defendant to answer by September 9, 2013.

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendant continued to use the instant equipment as of the date of the closing of argument, and unilaterally paid KRW 38.5 million to the Plaintiff from July 2013 to April 2014 as the usage fee of the instant equipment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts found in the above Paragraph 1, the part of the claim for extradition (the main claim and the ancillary claim are the same) and the defendant is obligated to deliver the equipment of this case to the plaintiff upon the termination of the lease of this case. 2) As to this, the defendant is obligated to deliver the equipment of this case to the plaintiff upon the completion of the lease of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.05.29 2014나37863

-인천지방법원 2016.01.14 2014가합60466

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2015가단5987

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2021.01.22 2020가합147