beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단26002

리스료

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,474,392 and KRW 22,508,766 among them, from March 23 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for automobile leasing (lease) with the Defendant with the following terms, and delivered the vehicle.

- Model Name: Benz ML350 diesel (B) - Vehicle Price: 93,300,000 won - Monthly rent: 1,840,380 won - Contract Period: 60 months: 8.38% per annum - Deposit: 18,480,000 won per annum.

B. Since then, the Defendant continued to delay the payment of rent, thereby losing the benefit of time, and the Plaintiff terminated the above lease agreement on January 5, 2016.

C. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant returned the said vehicle to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including a number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the above lease contract was terminated by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant delayed the payment of the lease fee itself does not have any dispute.

In addition, in light of the above facts, the amount of the money that the defendant has to pay to the plaintiff as a result of the termination of the above lease contract can be acknowledged as the fact that the sum of KRW 23,474,392 as of March 22, 2016 is the sum of KRW 22,508,766 [the principal amount = KRW 80,673,425 won from September 2, 2015 to December 2, 2015, the unpaid lease fee of KRW 8,890,419 due to early cancellation of KRW 8,756,580 - deposit of KRW 18,480,00 - KRW 59,39,90,000 collected by the plaintiff due to the sale of the vehicle].

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the agreement rate of 25% per annum from March 23, 2016 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 23,474,392 and KRW 22,508,76, which is the date following the date of settlement of accounts.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.