beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 6, 2010, the Defendant succeeded to, under the approval of the said construction, all of the rights and duties, such as the lease deposit and the right to claim for the refund of lease deposit, and the right to claim for the refund of lease deposit, under the lease agreement with the non-party Korean Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) up to December 31, 2013, on March 27, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).
B. On December 14, 2011, C obtained interest rate of 7.3% per annum from MSS Mutual Savings Banks (hereinafter “SSS Mutual Savings Banks”) and 45 million won per annum on December 31, 2013, subject to the terms and conditions of December 31, 2013, the expiration date of the lending period. The Defendant transferred the instant apartment rental deposit refund claim against the non-party Corporation in order to guarantee the said non-party’s debt up to the limit of 58.5 million won.
C. On September 30, 2013, Nonparty Bank transferred the above bonds to the Plaintiff and notified Nonparty Corporation of this fact.
[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above basic facts, C lost the benefit of time due to its failure to repay the principal and interest under a loan contract with the non-party bank, and the defendant, a joint guarantor, who is a legitimate transferee of the above loan, shall deliver the apartment of this case to the non-party Corporation, and the plaintiff shall recover the lease deposit and receive repayment of the principal and interest of the loan in arrears. Thus, the defendant is liable to deliver the apartment of this case to the non-party Corporation.
Therefore, the defendant asserted that the contract term of the apartment of this case is ten years expired on March 26, 2018, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim due to the termination of the contract term. However, in full view of the evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole argument, the defendant of this case (1).