(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.01 2016가단521675

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 2016.12.01 2016가단521675

임료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased necessary temporary materials at the construction site of the Sung-Mai Central Research Institute Co., Ltd. from April 14, 2014 to March 14, 2015, according to the Daegu Dong-gu Innovation that was conducted by the construction of Mancheon-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Mancheon-do Construction”), and the rent of KRW 66,875,927 was incurred.

Of the above rent, KRW 23,00,000 paid and unpaid KRW 43,875,927 remain. Damages for delay under the agreement between April 15, 2015 for the above rent are KRW 8,07,978.

Since the defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the rent of Yecheon Construction, he/she shall request the defendant to pay the amount stated in the claim.

2. According to the judgment Gap evidence No. 2 (hereinafter "the contract of this case"), it is recognized that the plaintiff affixed a seal which appears to be the defendant in appearance in the temporary re-lease agreement entered as the tenant's joint and several sureties.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 6, it is acknowledged that the stamp image affixed on the column, which is the joint and several surety of the contract of this case, is not based on the defendant's seal imprint, and that the plaintiff's employee and technical director, affixed the defendant's seal imprint in the contract of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge C as the defendant's employee, and that C did not obtain the defendant's seal imprint when the contract of this case is prepared, and as the plaintiff is the plaintiff, the contract of this case is not prepared on the basis of the defendant's intention, and there is no evidence to recognize that the contract of this case is not prepared on the basis of the defendant's intention as evidence to recognize the defendant

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나1162

-수원지방법원 2015.07.10 2014나18770

-수원지방법원 2020.12.17 2020나50966

-부산지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가합44925

-청주지방법원 2018.07.17 2018가단22138