beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.25 2018나92639

위약금등 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells office equipment under the trade name of C, and the Defendant is an incorporated association that provides youth weekends with consulting services, etc.

B. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned D400 office fixtures owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant office fixtures”) to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 200,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000 (excluding value-added tax), the contract term from August 26, 2016 to August 25, 2019, and the Defendant did not pay monthly rent by the claim date. If the Defendant did not pay monthly rent at the claim date, the Plaintiff may claim penalty of KRW 10,00 of the monthly rent to the Defendant (Article 8 subparag. 3), and if the Defendant terminates the contract within the contract period, the penalty (10 months per month) and deposit will be reverted to the Plaintiff.

(Article 9 subparag. 4 and hereinafter “instant contract”). The penalty provision in the instant contract shall be referred to as “the penalty provision” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

From June 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the monthly rent was not paid to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the monthly rent and value-added tax of 330,000 won from June 2018 to August 29, 2018 (i.e., monthly rent of 100,000 x 33 months x 1.1) and additional tax of 33,000 won (=30,000 won x 330,000 won x 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000) and penalty of 1,00,000,000 won ( monthly rent of 10,000,000 x 1,000 won) and penalty of 1,00,000,000 won x 100,000 won).

However, the penalty provision of this case is presumed to be an estimate of the amount of damages under Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, and where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court shall reduce it ex officio without any allegations by the parties.