추심금
1.Paragraph 1 of the order of the judgment of the first instance, including a claim extended in the trial, shall be amended as follows:
Defendant B, on January 10, 201, leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, and from January 10, 201 to January 10, 201, the lease of KRW 10,000,000,000 for the first floor store among the second floor buildings owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant building”).
On October 4, 2012, Defendant C leased the entire underground of the instant building from D Co., Ltd. (the contract includes G, but the corporate registration number is the same as D Co., Ltd.) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 1 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000 from October 20, 2012 to October 20, 2014.
From August 10, 2011, Defendant B did not pay the difference that is stipulated in each of the above lease agreements from December 26, 2012.
On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2014TTTB25146), issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the rent claim against the Defendants, and issued the above claim seizure and collection order with respect to the above claim seizure and collection order to the Defendants on September 22, 2014.
[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the facts of recognition as above, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the plaintiff as the collection creditor for 44 months from August 10, 201 to April 9, 2015, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the amount of 15,400,000 (=350,000 x 44 months x 44 months) for 28 months from December 26, 2012 to April 25, 2015 (200,000 x 28 months) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% from June 13, 2015 to April 25, 2015.
Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B failed to pay the rent on the ground that the auction procedure will commence with respect to the instant building. However, such circumstance alone is justifiable to refuse the rent payment.