(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.02 2016가단536677

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.02 2016가단536677

보증채무금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a facility lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) by setting the lease term as of June 25, 2010 with respect to the instant motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. Under the lease contract of this case, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed by C to the Plaintiff.

C. Upon termination of the lease term under the instant lease agreement, C is obliged to acquire or resell the instant vehicle with the remaining lease principal, or to return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff unless it is acquired or reconstructed the instant vehicle with the remaining lease principal.

However, even though the lease contract of this case expired on June 25, 2010, C did not take measures such as returning, transferring, or reconstructing the instant motor vehicle, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The party’s assertion that the Plaintiff may terminate the contract even if C, the primary debtor, delays the payment of the rent on at least two occasions under the instant lease agreement, and if the lease agreement has been terminated even, the Defendant, the primary debtor C and the Defendant, the joint guarantor, agreed to pay all the obligations including the amount to be borne under the agreement, such as the termination commission, provision of damages, and unpaid rent by the date of termination, and thus, the Defendant, as of August 2, 2016, should pay the Plaintiff KRW 59,522,834, the sum of the amount to be collected, as of August 2, 2016, as of KRW 19,024,536, the fine for negligence / penalty 9,284,596, damages for delay, 31,213,70

As to this, the defendant suffered a five-year extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's claim against C based on the lease contract of this case.

However, since the lawsuit of this case was filed more than five years after the termination of the lease contract of this case, the claim against C, the principal debtor, is completed by prescription.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.03.03 2016가단530501

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.25 2016나25170

-서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2016나2064358

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.17 2014가단16171

-수원지방법원 2017.10.12 2016나18200