beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.07.08 2019가합101259

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 180,261,451 as well as 5% per annum from August 10, 2018 to July 8, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B management body of the Defendants (hereinafter “Defendant B management body”) is a non-corporate body comprised of sectional owners of Busan Shipping Daegu Building (hereinafter “instant building”) and Defendant C is the representative of Defendant B management body.

B. 1) The Plaintiff and D’s lease agreement 1) operated in the name of the “E Hospital” on the 9th or 11th floor of the instant building with the name of the “E Hospital,” and the Plaintiff was working as the head of the Embane and division of the said hospital. 2) When the said hospital was closed down due to the reason that D’s liabilities exceeded, etc., the Plaintiff leased F & G (F, etc.) from D on February 25, 2018 for the purpose of continuing to operate the sexual surgery and the imposed assessment on the 9th floor.

On April 2018, the Plaintiff purchased various medical equipment used at the pertinent hospital from D, and registered as a business operator on May 4, 2018, and operated Hsung Medical Center (hereinafter “instant hospital”) with the specialized department for sex surgery, skin imposition, etc. from around F, etc. to F, etc. (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

[Defendant asserts that the compulsory auction procedure had already been initiated on February 20, 2018 with respect to Fho Lake, etc., and that it is too rare to conclude a lease contract with the payment of deposit and rent in such status. Accordingly, the instant hospital claims that D is merely a change of name to the Plaintiff only to the outside to evade his/her own debt. According to the statement of No. 1-1, the fact that the compulsory auction procedure for Fho Lake, etc. as claimed by the Defendants was commenced can be acknowledged (the obligee of the decision to commence the compulsory auction is Defendant C).

The above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and D is false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the defendant C filed a complaint against the plaintiff as a crime of evading compulsory execution for the same reason.