beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a car lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B on the basis of the acquisition cost of KRW 53,339,310, monthly rent of KRW 1,260,000, lease period of KRW 36, and interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 24% per annum. Defendant C guaranteed the obligation owed by Defendant B to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement.
B. As the Defendants did not pay rent, the Plaintiff terminated the above lease agreement on January 11, 2008.
C. On December 15, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants for a payment order against the Seoul Central District Court 2008 tea102460, and on December 30, 2008, the above court issued an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,850,682 and KRW 20,712,221 per annum from December 9, 2008 to the date of full payment. The above payment order became final and conclusive on January 22, 2009.
In June 25, 2018, the sum of the principal and overdue interest of the rental fee that was unpaid as of June 25, 2018 is KRW 68,165,336 (principal principal KRW 20,712,221 overdue interest at KRW 47,453,115).
E. On December 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order to extend the prescription period of the claim for the payment order finalized.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 68,165,336 won in total, and the amount of 20,712,221 won in total, which is the overdue interest rate of 24% per annum from June 26, 2018 to the date of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The main point of the claim is that the defendants' declaration of bankruptcy and decision of immunity against the defendants were confirmed, and thus, the claims of the lease fee of this case also have the effect of immunity.
For this reason,