beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 160,486,596 and KRW 151,013,30 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from April 10, 2019 to May 29, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee agreement for the return of deposit for lease to the Defendant and the Defendant’s B to guarantee the obligation to refund deposit for lease to the Defendant and the Defendant’s B.
B. Around April 27, 2018, the Defendant failed to refund the lease deposit to B, and the Plaintiff repaid KRW 200 million to B on behalf of the Plaintiff pursuant to the contract of guarantee for the return of the deposit under the above lease deposit. B around April 4, 2019, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 50 million from the Defendant on or around April 9, 2019, and on April 9, 2019, the balance of the claim amount to be reimbursed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 151,013,300 (the remainder remaining after being appropriated for KRW 48,986,700 out of the total amount of KRW 50 million) and damages for delay after being appropriated for the principal amount of KRW 1,103,300 (the remainder remaining after being appropriated for KRW 200 million).
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 160,486,596 (the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 151,013,30,473,296) and the amount of KRW 151,013,30 of the subrogated principal from April 10, 2019 to May 29, 2019, which is the delivery date of an application for modification of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim, 5% per annum under the Civil Act; and from the following day to May 31, 2019, Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings; the statutory interest rate of KRW 15% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (which was enforced by Presidential Decree No. 2978); and to pay damages for delay calculated by the statutory interest rate of Article 37(1).27(1).
3. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.