beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 290,000,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from October 18, 2019 to December 5, 2019 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 17, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with B, from July 28, 2017, to July 27, 2019, and from July 27, 2019, the lease deposit amount of KRW 290,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Defendant received KRW 290,00,000 from B as lease deposit.
B. On August 19, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff that guarantees the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit against B upon the termination of the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”), and the Plaintiff issued a guarantee certificate to B.
In addition, on June 28, 2017, B transferred to the Plaintiff the right to return the lease deposit to the Defendant according to the instant lease agreement, and the notification of the assignment of the said claim reaches the Defendant on August 9, 2017.
C. Even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not refund the lease deposit to B, and pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 290,000,000 to B on October 17, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 290,000 for indemnity to the Plaintiff who subrogated for the Defendant’s obligation to refund the lease deposit to B under the instant guarantee agreement, as well as the amount of KRW 290,000 from October 18, 2019 to December 5, 2019, which is the day following the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, from October 18, 2019 to December 5, 2019, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and delay damages at each rate of 12% per annum
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.