beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.30 2016가단100353

대여금

Text

The defendant shall calculate 50,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from December 5, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement in order with the following lessees with respect to the area of 802 square meters of the GuC site during Ansan-si.

① On June 30, 2010, lessee D (mutual name: E) ② on August 30, 2012, 2012, lessee F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”). At the time, the FF agreed to pay D, a lessee, KRW 50 million, in terms of directors’ expenses, to D, and the Plaintiff, a lessor, who is a lessor, first pays D, in lieu of the lessor, and the FF agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million each month from November 30, 2012 to March 30, 2013.

(3) The defendant on May 27, 2013.

As the former LAF, which is a tenant, did not pay the director's expenses, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract with the FAF, and entered into a new lease contract with the defendant.

The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff each month by May 26, 2014 to March 26, 2015, which the Fund shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million.

(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint ( December 5, 2015) to the day of complete payment as requested by the Plaintiff, in accordance with the agreement on the payment of director expenses in this case and the agreement on the payment of director expenses in this case, barring special circumstances.

The defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's assertion was concluded on the premise that the plaintiff paid the director's expenses to D, but the amount of KRW 50 million that the plaintiff paid to D is the lease deposit that the plaintiff should return, not the director's expenses.

The agreement of this case is concluded by the plaintiff's deception or the defendant's mistake, and the defendant is revoked.

The defendant's assertion on the cancellation of deception is against D.