logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2020.11.04 2019가단7275
임대료
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,072,764 and the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum from November 28, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the construction temporary materials to the Defendant, but did not receive KRW 48,498,595 out of the rent. During the lease period, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 20,229,550 as part of the construction temporary materials was damaged to the extent that it would be destroyed or impossible to use them, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the rent and the damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 7 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 as to the claim for the payment of rent, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, the plaintiff entered into a provisional construction loan agreement with the defendant on two occasions on March 19, 2018 and Oct. 18, 2018, and agreed to be paid with the defendant in cash within 60 days after the end of each month during the lease period and in default on the payment of rent, the rent shall be paid in cash within 24% per annum. The plaintiff leased the provisional construction report to the defendant from March 2018 to June 2019 under each of the above lease agreements. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of rent No. 47,072,764 won [the total amount of rent No. 1085,97,97 and 205 won per annum No. 1065] among the rent by the defendant to the present.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the non-party company agreed between the plaintiff and the non-party E company (hereinafter "non-party E company") to pay the above unpaid rent on behalf of the defendant, so it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's above claim. However, the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is insufficient to recognize that the agreement was concluded between the original defendant and the non-party company as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

arrow