Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on February 23, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
그 내용은 취득원가 2억 9,000만 원, 리스료 월 4,601,910원, 리스기간 60개월, 연체이자율 25%로 정하여 원고가 C에게 믈러 증철기 1998년식 1대, 스탈접지기 1998년식 1대(이하 ‘이 사건 리스물건’이라 한다)를 시설대여하는 것이다.
B. D’s succession to the lease agreement concluded on November 18, 2013 a lease succession agreement with the lessee to acquire the status of the lessee under the instant lease agreement.
C. D’s unpaid lease fees and the termination of the instant lease agreement did not pay the Plaintiff the lease fees even when D received the instant leased goods. On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff notified D that the instant lease agreement would be terminated.
D’s death D was deceased on October 29, 2014, and there was Defendant A and A, the wife, as the legal heir of D at the time of death.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on July 17, 2014.
As the successors of D, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Defendants’ share of inheritance (Defendant A: 3/5, Defendant B B2/5) in proportion to the unpaid principal and the agreed rate under the lease agreement of this case.
3. According to the evidence submitted by the Defendants, Defendant A filed a waiver of inheritance with the Jung-gu District Court 2015 Ma643 on April 24, 2015, by filing a report on the waiver of inheritance on May 4, 2015, and Defendant B filed a declaration on the renunciation of inheritance with the Jung-gu District Court 2015 Goyang Branch 1 on January 2, 2015, and filed a declaration on the renunciation of inheritance on May 15, 2015.
Since the Defendants legitimately renounced inheritance against D, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified under the premise that the Defendants succeeded to D’s obligation to the Plaintiff.