beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 81,409,281 and KRW 39,923,468 among them, from March 14, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 7, 2011, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) leased one set of the Russing car with the Plaintiff (F before its modification) as the lease amount of KRW 51,844,00, and the lease period of KRW 36 months. The principal and interest were repaid in installments, but the interest rate of interest in arrears is 6% per annum (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. At the time, the Defendant concurrently held the position of the representative director as an internal director of the instant company, and jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the instant company under the instant contract.
C. On November 1, 2011, the instant company issued a certificate of corporate seal impression, and the Defendant issued a certificate of corporate seal impression on November 3, 201, and attached each of the above certificates of seal impression to the instant contract for the use of “vehicle” with the seal imprint affixed thereon. The instant contract bears the same seal affixed thereto.
After the conclusion of the instant contract, the instant company used the said vehicle as delivery. However, the agreed installment payment was made in part, and thus lost the benefit of time due to the suspension of payment. As of March 13, 2019, the instant company bears the obligation of KRW 81,409,281 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 39,923,468, and the accrued interest of KRW 25,581,224, the accrued interest of KRW 25,581,224, overdue interest, KRW 10,86,048, and KRW 5,038,541.
[Based on recognition, as to the authenticity of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Lease), 2 and 5, and the whole purport of the pleading, the defendant's assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 1 was forged, it cannot be acknowledged as a defense of forgery only with the entries of Nos. 1 and 6, and the defendant's seal impression appears to have been affixed to the contract. According to Gap evidence No. 7 (Judgment), the amount equivalent to the difference between the lease cost of the automobile and the contract deposit of this case under the contract of this case and the acquisition cost of the automobile under the contract of this case.