beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 58,969,290 and KRW 55,897,700 among the Defendants, from August 17, 2017 to August 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant obtained permission for conversion of mountainous district from Gangnam-si, and concluded a guarantee contract with the Plaintiff and the insured to guarantee the deposit for restoration from the conversion of mountainous district with the purchase price of KRW 77,104,110, with the Plaintiff and the insured amount of KRW 77,10.
B. On December 31, 2017, Gangnam-si notified the revocation of permission for mountainous district conversion to the Defendant, and issued an order for restoration to the original state, but the Defendant failed to comply with the restoration order, thereby executing the restoration to the original state at the Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 77,104,110 on February 2, 2017, and received refund of KRW 21,206,410 on August 14, 2017.
C. As of August 17, 2017, the outstanding principal is KRW 55,897,700, delay damages is KRW 2,517,690, and the outstanding amount is KRW 58,969,290, in total, KRW 553,90.
[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 58,969,290 won and 55,897,700 won among them with 12% per annum from August 17, 2017 to August 22, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the purport of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of this case, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.
Although the defendant asserts that the amount paid by the plaintiff is excessive as the restoration cost, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
3. Accordingly, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the grounds of its reasoning.