(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2015.06.03 2014가단7652

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2015.06.03 2014가단7652

임대료미수금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,270,000 as well as 20% per annum from January 14, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff running a concrete pumps lease business with the trade name of “C” and the Plaintiff leased concrete pumps from December 2, 2006 to May 28, 2010 to the Defendant (at several construction sites in Ycheon City) engaged in the same type of business (on the Defendant’s site, the Plaintiff’s equipment replaced, the Plaintiff or the driver operated the pumps, and the Plaintiff or the driver operated the pumps at the construction site). The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 24,270,000 out of the total equipment rent of KRW 76,210,00,000, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 24,270,00.

B. For about 20 years prior to the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) if there is a lack of pumps to be put into the construction site or if the standards are not met with respect to the entry of pumps between each client and each other, the Plaintiff and the Defendant was responsible for replacing the other’s pumps by requesting the other party; and (b) later, it was difficult for the other party to receive the rent for the pumps from the construction business operator, which is one of its customers, to pay it to the other party.

(The plaintiff owns five pumps different in size, but the defendant owns only one pumps, and most of them are at the defendant's request, and the plaintiff operates the pumps instead of the plaintiff's pumps at the construction site where the defendant agreed to input the pumps.

In the event of the substitution of pumps, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s pump driver completed work at a construction site and prepared a written confirmation of use stating the date, vehicle number, on-site name, work hours, etc., and at the time of the entry, it was not a direct transaction between the Plaintiff and the construction business operator, but a lot of time when the user was confirmed by the on-site manager, etc., and the Plaintiff’s wife E, based on the said written confirmation of use, prepared a trade account book with the Defendant.

However, in the process of moving from F to G in the past a few years, E's written confirmation of use.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2020.04.23 2019나12872

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.23 2015가단5132648

-대전지방법원 2019.08.22 2019노213

-대전지방법원 2019.01.18 2018고단3889

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.01.13 2014가단6282