beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 14,345,363 and as a result, from June 26, 2015 to September 15, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties or the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap 1 to 5.
1) The Plaintiff (the former trade name was “Korea Stock Company,” but the trade name was changed on August 8, 2014, as indicated by the Plaintiff.
(1) On January 10, 2014, Defendant ABC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)
B) From January 10, 2014 to January 9, 2015, the term of lease between the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to lease temporary materials by setting the construction site in cash at the end of the following month after the issuance of the tax invoice. Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff under the said lease agreement. (ii) The Plaintiff leased the temporary materials to the Defendant Company on February 28, 2015, but was returned on February 28, 2015, but the temporary materials equivalent to KRW 6,494,730 were lost and failed to be returned, and the agreed rent was not paid for KRW 23,850,633.
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 30,345,363 (=6,494,730 won 23,850,633) the remainder of 14,345,363 won after deducting the amount of 16,00,000 won paid by the Plaintiff from the person who was already paid the amount of payment, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 26, 2015 to September 15, 2015, the day following the final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, which is the day of the final payment, to the day of the payment, and from the next day to September 15, 2015, to the day of the full payment.
2. As to the assertion of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company asserted that C, who is in charge of the Plaintiff, had decided to settle at a discounted rate of 5% from the agreed rent, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion by the Defendant Company is without merit.