logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가단156687
리스사용료등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A Co., Ltd., the amount of KRW 53,673,06 and its amount:

B. Defendant C and D are from the network E.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on December 10, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), and received a pan-charter, Adidry, and Draling at a monthly lease rate of KRW 2,932,09, and delayed interest rate of KRW 25%. The network E guaranteed the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s obligation under a lease agreement with the Plaintiff.

B. From June 2015, Defendant Company lost the benefit of time due to delayed payment of lease fees, and the remaining lease fees as of September 2, 2015 are KRW 53,673,066.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 53,673,06 and the damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from September 3, 2015 to the date of full payment, respectively, within the scope of the property inherited from the network E (= KRW 53,673,066) and jointly and severally with the Defendant Company.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the above Defendants sought to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that they did not have any property inherited from the network E, but the grounds for qualified acceptance are limited to the extent of the property inherited from the network E, and even if the Defendants did not have any property inherited, they do not have any property inherited (the written adjudication on the qualification approval for inheritance against the Defendants include apartment and deposit as active property) itself, or do not have any reason for rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion is decided as per Disposition.

arrow