전대차보증금
1. Defendant B’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 13, 2015 to July 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties concerned: (a) leased G Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) constructed on the land outside the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul and four lots from D and E, and sublet the portion of 83 square meters (hereinafter “instant sub-lease”) out of 1st underground of which was sub-leaseed to the Plaintiff (i.e., the Defendant C’s own seal on the re-lease contract, granting the right of representation on the Defendant B, or impliedly consented to the Defendant B’s seal on his behalf); and (b) Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the sub-lease deposit to the Plaintiff.
After concluding the sub-lease contract as above, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 300 million in the designated account.
However, the Defendants did not deliver the instant sub-lease to the Plaintiff, and did not return the deposit even after they agreed to return it by January 12, 2015.
Therefore, Defendant C is a sub-contractor, and Defendant B is liable to pay the repayment deposit and damages for delay to the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety.
The Defendants alleged in Defendant B’s assertion signed a sub-lease contract with the Plaintiff by affixing their seals and signing a sub-lease contract with the Plaintiff, receiving a sub-lease deposit with Defendant B’s account, used it to the interior decoration, but did not deliver the building to the Plaintiff, and did not return the sub-lease deposit.
Defendant C’s assertion leased the instant hospital from D and E to use it as a long-term care hospital for senior citizens, and borrowed money of a considerable amount from Defendant C as expenses for interior decoration, facility costs, etc.
Defendant C was aware that the Plaintiff lent money to Defendant B and did not conclude a sub-lease contract with the Plaintiff.
The stamp image of No. 2-3 of the evidence No. 3 is not the defendant C, but the defendant C has not affixed it, and it is forged.
The key issue of the instant case is that Defendant B is not a co-representative.