(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가단33592

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) 인천지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가단33592

항공기반환및임대료

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver an aircraft listed in the separate sheet;

(b) pay 31,00,000 won;

2...

Reasons

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, on May 1, 2017, the plaintiff shall pay 100,000 won per hour to the defendant (the defendant was changed to the current trade name via C, D, and E) on May 1, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "instant aircraft") for rent of 30,00 won per hour (based on the Hobs’ meters installed on an aircraft), and the rent of 25,00 won per hour from the time exceeding 10 hours per month, and the minimum guarantee time per month shall be 33 hours per month, regardless of flight hours, and the lease period shall be from May 1, 2017 to April 30, 202 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease contract"), and if the defendant under the said lease contract for at least two months, he/she may terminate the lease contract at all after the conclusion of the lease contract, which may be recognized as having not been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on February 13, 2020, when the copy of the complaint of this case, which contains the plaintiff's declaration that the lease contract of this case will be terminated on the grounds of delinquency in rent, was delivered to the defendant. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return the aircraft of this case which is the object of the lease to the plaintiff, and pay the overdue rent of 31 million won calculated on the basis of the minimum guaranteed rent for 31 months from May 1, 2017 to December 23, 2019 upon the plaintiff's request (i.e., one million won x 31 months).

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he is not the actual owner of the aircraft of this case.

According to the evidence No. 3, F is recognized to have been registered as the owner of the aircraft of this case from August 25, 2014, but the Plaintiff asserted to be the actual owner of the aircraft of this case, but the Plaintiff also claims to be the actual owner of the aircraft of this case.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.16 2015가합100319

-서울행정법원 2020.02.13 2019구합64709

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.23 2013가합501266

-서울남부지방법원 2020.09.25 2019가합101329