beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,410,654, as well as KRW 24,390,205, respectively, from December 20, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant SCo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SCo Construction”) as follows, and Defendant A and B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation related to the instant lease agreement.
Model Name: K7 GSL 3.0 Robs Vehicle Number: C Arrangement Period: 24% overdue interest rate: 973,400 won per month: 16,766,00 won
B. From November 15, 2014, Defendant Sco Construction delayed the lease fee at least twice, and the Plaintiff sent a notice of termination to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2014. Around that time, the notice of termination was served on Defendant Sco Construction.
C. As of December 18, 2014, Defendant SCo Construction’s obligation to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 24,410,654 (i.e., the unpaid principal of KRW 21,248,295 in arrears of KRW 1,945,297 in arrears of KRW 94,199 in delay damages of KRW 20,449 in delay damages of KRW 1,062,414 in arrears).
[Ground of Recognition] Defendant Sco Construction, and Defendant A: Each entry of the evidence No. 1 to No. 5 of the evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the delay in the lease fees of Defendant Sco Construction. Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 24% from December 20, 2014 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks with respect to the total amount of the damages, etc., including the overdue rental fees, and KRW 24,390,205 (=24,410,654- damages for delay).
B. Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A’s claim is unjustifiable, on June 30, 2013, knew that he retired from Defendant Sco Construction and that Defendant B continued to pay lease fees. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified.
As long as Defendant A has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Defendant Sco Construction with respect to the instant lease agreement.