(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가단109236

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가단109236

보증채무금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 36,883,930 as well as KRW 36,227,869 among them, from April 19, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a facility leasing contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the vehicles s.350 with B during the period of 44 months, lease fees of 3,284,700 won, deposit money of 14,150,000 won, remaining value of 42,450,000 won, and overdue interest rate of 25% per annum. The Defendant is a joint and several surety with respect to the obligation owed by B under the instant contract.

(2) The instant contract was terminated on January 10, 2014, and on April 18, 2014, the amount of debt owed to the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff of the Co., Ltd. as of April 18, 2014 is KRW 7,776,289, the amount of debt owed to the Plaintiff of the Co., Ltd., Ltd. is KRW 42,450,000, such as unpaid principal, KRW 151,580, such as penalty/automobile tax, KRW 37,375, and damages for delay.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay with an agreement of 25% per annum from April 19, 2014 to the date of full payment (36,227,86,930 won, deducting deposit of 14,150,000 won from deposit of 42,450,580 won ( KRW 151,580 won) 37,375 won ( KRW 618,686 won) and the principal amount of 36,27,869 won (=36,83,930 won,930-37,375 won-618,686 won).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the defendant asserted to the effect that he was merely the representative director under the name of B and did not have prepared the contract at the time of the contract, and that he was not responsible for the joint and several sureties. However, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as stated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, the plaintiff was issued the defendant's certificate at the time of the contract of this case. The fact that the seal imprint affixed on the certificate of the personal seal impression and the seal imprint affixed on the joint and several sureties of the contract of this case are identical, and the above certificate of the personal

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단136719

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.11 2018가단5703

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.17 2015가합568119

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.06 2014가합19078

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.21 2014가단102334