beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,059,997 as well as KRW 31,739,515 among them, from February 9, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff leased one vehicle AUDI A7 car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to Defendant A on the condition that the lease amount of 91,37,90 won, the lease period of 60 months, the remaining value of 20,54,000 won, the deposit amount of 20,54,000 won, the monthly lease amount of 1,619,000 won, and the delay damages rate of 25% per annum.
(hereinafter referred to as "the lease of this case"). (b)
When the lease fee of Defendant A was overdue, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement as of January 29, 2014, and sent such notification to Defendant A on February 6, 2014, and on February 8, 2018, after the instant lawsuit was filed, the total amount of the remaining principal and interest of the Defendant A owed to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the instant lease agreement was KRW 54,059,97, and the total amount of the outstanding lease amount and legal expenses was KRW 31,739,515.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 through 13 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above recognition, Defendant A and Defendant B, a principal debtor of the instant lease agreement, and joint and several sureties, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 54,059,97 won and the principal amount of KRW 31,739,515 with interest rate of 25% per annum from February 9, 2018 to the date of full payment.
As to this, Defendant A and C did not affix their seals to the lease contract (Evidence A No. 1) of this case as the lessee or joint guarantor, and their respective seal seals affixed to their names are used by theft (D or E).
However, a person who asserts that his seal was stolen shall prove the use of the seal, and if there is no proof, the authenticity of the seal shall be presumed to have been established (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1394, Jul. 27, 1976). The seal of the said Defendants in the course of preparing the lease contract of this case.