(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.25 2017나65188

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.25 2017나65188

기타(금전)

Text

1. All appeals by the defendant (appointed party) are dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

Reasons

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 10 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on July 17, 2015 with respect to FW 740i vehicles (hereinafter "automobile of this case") with the acquisition cost of KRW 32 million, lease fee of KRW 689,550, 600, interest rate of 60 months, interest rate of 10.61%, interest rate of 10.61%, and interest rate of KRW 25% per annum; the Selection G jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's obligation under the above lease agreement; the defendant delayed to pay the lease fee, and the fact that the lease fee of which was overdue as of October 6, 2016 is 26,345,505 won (= principal of principal of KRW 25,313,51, 1031, 954).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant and Selected G are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the overdue rental fee of KRW 26,345,505 and the principal of KRW 25,313,51 among them, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate under the instant lease contract, from October 9, 2016 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserted that the lease contract of this case was concluded by the deceit or the defendant's mistake that the plaintiff knew or could have known, and thus, was revoked by the defendant. Even if valid, there was a defect in the vehicle of this case pursuant to Article 8 (3) of the plaintiff's automobile lease standard terms and conditions, and since the plaintiff knew or was negligent, the plaintiff cannot claim for the lease fee to the defendant.

B. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 with respect to the instant vehicle, the right to collateral security of KRW 50 million was established on the creditor with respect to the instant vehicle, and Eul established the said mortgage on the instant vehicle.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가단261919

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.02 2017가합111787

-수원지방법원 2018.03.13 2016나73573

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.30 2016가단248243

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.22 2015가합555885