logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나40920
사용료
Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3.The reduction of claims by this court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease contract with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) with the acquisition cost (amount of loan), KRW 64,392,710, monthly rent of KRW 1,161,200, annual interest rate of KRW 8.55%, annual overdue interest rate of KRW 25%, loan period of KRW 60, lease deposit of KRW 12,040,000, and Defendant D, the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd., guaranteed the Defendant Co., Ltd’s obligation under the instant lease contract.

B. Since then, the Defendant Company’s delinquency in paying the lease fee, the instant lease agreement was earlier cancelled on September 2017.

C. On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 12,040,00 won as deposit, and 26,281,375 won as of March 20, 2019, respectively, for the principal, interest, damages for delay, and fees owed by the Defendant Company. Accordingly, the Defendant Company’s obligation based on April 1, 2019 remains 45,887,931 won (i.e., principal damages for delay 45,037,091 KRW 495,00).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay rent, etc., the overdue interest rate of 24% per annum from April 2, 2019 to the date of full payment was reduced to 24% per annum from April 2, 2019 to April 2, 2019 to the date of full payment.

shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated in proportion to the ratio of such damages.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant D merely affixed documents without any explanation to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant lease agreement and affixed seals to the Plaintiff’s automobile seller, and the Defendant D’s personal joint and several liability for the Defendant Company’s lease agreement was entirely different. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D.

arrow