logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.07 2014가단95929
리스료
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 95,359,732 and the amount of KRW 87,743,176 from October 7, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with the acquisition cost of KRW 127,60,00,00, lease period of KRW 36 months, lease fee of KRW 2,831,293, and KRW 2,944,910, at an overdue interest rate of KRW 25% each month (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

B. From August 2013, the Defendant began to delay the monthly rent of the instant lease agreement, and due to the Defendant’s delinquency, the amount of early termination under the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement is KRW 95,359,732 as of October 6, 2014.

(i) Interest of KRW 87,743,176 at interest rate of KRW 1,460,253 at interest rate of KRW 6,156,30 at interest rate of KRW 87,743,176 at interest rate of KRW 6,156,30 at interest rate of KRW 6,303)

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 95,359,732 under the instant lease agreement, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate, from October 7, 2014 to the date of full payment, for the principal and interest of KRW 87,743,176, among the principal and interest of the instant lease agreement.

B. The defendant's assertion is sufficient to conclude the lease contract of this case with the plaintiff, but the person who actually uses the machinery of this case is not responsible for the lease contract of this case. However, separate from who actually uses the machinery of this case, as long as the defendant entered into the lease contract of this case with the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to perform it according to the terms of the contract. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified.

arrow