beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff’s KRW 105,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 24, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 1, 2013, C leased the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 22 million, and the lease term from September 1, 2013 to October 31, 2015 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”), and the payment period of the above rent was determined as the last day of each month.
B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) based on the authentic deed of a monetary loan for consumption with the executory power of No. 189 of the Han-American District Court (No. 189) No. 189 on February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order against C as to “the amount up to the claim amount out of the monthly rent that C received with respect to the store of this case”; and (b) on February 13, 2015, the Defendant was served on February 13, 2015.
C. On July 2, 2014, based on the authentic copy of the judgment with executory power of the Incheon District Court 2014Gahap11501, the Intervenor of the Plaintiff Co-Litigation (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) received a provisional attachment order against the obligor C and 3 obligor as the Incheon District Court 2014Kahap1006 on July 2, 2014, with the amount of KRW 350 million for the monthly rent paid to the instant store, “The amount up to the above claim amount, out of the monthly rent paid by C for the instant store,” and the said decision was served on the Defendant on July 17, 2014.
After that, on August 26, 2015, the intervenor received the attachment and collection order, which is transferred from the provisional seizure to the original seizure, with respect to the above provisional seizure claims by the Incheon District Court 2015TTTT 2015TT 502840, and the above attachment and collection order were served on the defendant on August 28, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the grounds of the claim by the plaintiff and the intervenor
A. According to the above facts, C’s rent of KRW 572 million for the store of this case against the Defendant = 22 million.