beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 8, 2012 to March 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 2010, 2010, a lot shopping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “shot shopping”) leased Nos. 102 from the Defendant, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (102) to December 20, 201, and paid KRW 32 million as security deposit.
B. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance policy on security of lease deposit with a lot shopping in order to guarantee the conclusion of the above lease agreement and the collection of the lease deposit deposit that the lot shopping acquired against the Defendant.
C. Since then, the Defendant sold the foregoing leased object to C, and C refused to accept a lease agreement with a lot shopping, and the Defendant also refused to return the deposit for the shopping on February 6, 2012, and the Plaintiff subrogated the lease deposit amount of KRW 32 million to a lot shopping on behalf of the Plaintiff in accordance with the aforementioned security insurance contract on deposit money for lease on a deposit basis.
[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 (including ad hoc number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 32 million, which was acquired by subrogation from the insurer, and as the Plaintiff seeks, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 8, 2012 to March 6, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendant alleged that it was impossible to accept the instant claim because it did not consent to, or received notification of, the conclusion of the security insurance contract for lease on a deposit basis between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. However, whether the Defendant consented to, or received notification of, the conclusion of the security insurance contract for lease on a deposit basis in the instant case where the Plaintiff exercised by subrogation of the insurer the obligation to refund lease on a deposit basis.
3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s objection.