[추심금][미간행]
Mog Capital Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Modern, Attorneys Kim Min-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
November 16, 2017
Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Da213088 Decided April 25, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 109,817,124 won and 108,000,000 won with the interest of 18% per annum from September 6, 2014 to the date of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 129,60,000 won with the interest of 18% per annum.
1. Quotation of the first instance judgment
The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following additional determinations, and thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount of the pledge caused to the plaintiff by failing to perform his/her contractual obligation to notify the plaintiff who is the pledgee of the sale of the leased object.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, May 14, 2013, it is recognized that the defendant signed at the bottom of the document stating "I consent to establish a pledge right with respect to the lease deposit received (or to receive) by the principal under the lease contract" on May 14, 2013. However, since the above document states "I will specify the contents of the pledge right establishment and the new owner, I will notify you you you of the contents of the pledge right establishment and the new owner and inform you of the content of the pledge right establishment and the new owner." However, we cannot find that the plaintiff's act of notifying the principal of the terms and conditions established in advance in order to obtain the consent of the third debtor at the time of the lease contract constitutes a new contract terms and conditions, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's act of notifying the principal of the terms and conditions of the contract with the content of the contract and the new owner's obligation to explain it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the terms and conditions of the contract were changed.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Jeong Chang-jin (Presiding Judge)