beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 476,167,751 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 15, 2016 to July 11, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of the export and import business of lighting fixtures, etc., and the Defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of the Switzerland lighting business.
B. 1) On May 20, 2014, the Defendant changed its trade name to non-Esp Capital Co., Ltd. (Non-Esp Capital Co., Ltd.)
hereinafter referred to as “non-Ssaves”
B) Between the Plaintiff and the non-Esclock equipment supplied by the Plaintiff to the non-Esclock (hereinafter “instant equipment”).
3) The term “instant lease agreement” refers to a contract under which the Plaintiff is granted a facility leasing (lease) from the non-Es Capital amounting to KRW 48,902,650 per month (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(2) On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a re-purchase agreement (hereinafter “instant re-purchase agreement”) with the non-SP Capital on which the Plaintiff agreed to re-purchase the instant equipment at 101% of the recovered principal as of the termination date, if the instant lease agreement is earlier between the non-SP Capital and the non-SP Capital.
C. From August 5, 2014 to May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 849,972,151 in total (the Plaintiff paid KRW 476,167,751 in total until October 1, 2015) for the purpose of paying rent pursuant to the instant lease in lieu of the lease agreement to the SI Capital.
Around June 13, 2014, the Defendant merged with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”), but on January 7, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment of invalidation of merger under the Sungnam Branch Branch 2014Kahap206972, which became final and conclusive on February 11, 2015 as the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2015.
E. Meanwhile, on August 21, 2014, B sold the instant equipment in KRW 1.0 billion to the cans lighting (hereinafter “ cans lighting”) on the other hand, and confirmed that the cans lighting may use the instant equipment during the lease period between B and the cans lighting and the Plaintiff acknowledged the ownership of the instant equipment on August 21, 2014 and repaid the lease fee in full to the cans lighting.