(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단14729

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) 창원지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단14729

중장비사용료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff leased equipment during construction upon a request from the Defendant to rent equipment during construction. ① The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the rent of KRW 50,000,00 among the rent of equipment during construction from the site of construction to the site of construction construction of a factory at the construction site of the chemical machinery until June 30, 2013, and ② the rent of KRW 41,030,030, total of KRW 91,030,000 among the rent of equipment during construction from May 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013. However, the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the rent of KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2013.

3) Even if not, C, who is the manager of the Defendant Company, on behalf of the Defendant, agreed to pay 50,000,000 won for the heavy equipment rental fee as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) incurred between them on January 16, 2012, and the Defendant is obliged to pay 50,000,000 won according to the above agency act of C, because it prepared and delivered the evidence No. 3.

B. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a heavy equipment rental contract solely with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2-5, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 76, and Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 through 53, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was a power of representation to conclude a contract on behalf of the defendant for the payment of heavy equipment rental fees on behalf of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the witness C’s testimony, the other party who concluded a heavy equipment contract and leased a heavy equipment is only found to have been D and E.

Therefore, the plaintiff is premised on the conclusion of a contract for leasing construction heavy equipment between the plaintiff and the defendant.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.08.19 2015나1899

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나48425

-창원지방법원 2018.11.29 2018가단111468

-창원지방법원거창지원 2019.05.21 2019가단154

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.05 2017가단80333