beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 49,130,970 and KRW 45,986,327. From March 15, 2016.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On September 19, 201, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, with respect to Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 201 (hereinafter “instant housing”), with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, and the period from November 10, 201 to November 9, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the lease deposit to Defendant B.
1) On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff set a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) at the rate of 46 million won with Defendant A, from November 10, 201 to November 9, 2013, with the term of lease from November 10, 2011 to November 9, 2013, with the interest rate of 3 months change rate (the agreed interest rate of 8.28%), and at the rate of 18% per annum with the overdue interest rate.
A) A contract to establish a pledge (hereinafter “instant pledge contract”) with Defendant A for the purpose of securing loan claims, whereby the limit of collateral amount is KRW 59,80,000,000 for the claim to refund the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement with Defendant A for the subsequent security of loan claims.
(2) At the time of the instant pledge agreement, Defendant B prepared the “written consent on the creation of a pledge and written promise on the return of the lease deposit,” stating that, at the time of the instant pledge agreement with the lessee, Defendant B would directly return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff to the extent of the balance, excluding the amount of mutual aid per annum under the lease agreement, from the lessee’s lease deposit, to the extent of the lessee’s repayment of the lease deposit due to the termination of the lease agreement or the termination of the contract, etc.
3. Since November 2013, this case’s lease contract was implicitly renewed, and D, an employee of the Plaintiff, was confirmed to be an implied renewal plan under the same conditions as the existing lease contract by posting a telephone to the lessor Defendant B around October 16, 2013, and was also notified of the Plaintiff’s extension of the loan period to the Defendant A, the period of pledge two years, and the consent was obtained from the Defendant B.
Afterward agreement between the parties, 2014.