logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.04.18 2017가단3316
가설자재임대료
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 149,136,199 as well as 6% per annum from June 1, 2017 to March 29, 2018.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers) and Eul’s testimony, the plaintiff entered into a temporary re-lease agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on May 23, 2012 and April 23, 2015, and leased temporary materials, such as a short pipe pipe, at the construction site of the non-party company, the non-party company leased the temporary materials at the construction site of the non-party company. The rent unpaid from January 2015 to March 2017 is the aggregate of 149,136,199, and the defendant, around October 25, 2016, may recognize the fact that the non-party company jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay rent to the plaintiff of the non-party company.

According to the above facts, the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 149,136,199 of the non-party company and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from June 1, 2017 to March 27, 2018, which is the service date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant is liable only for the rent incurred after the joint and several surety, since the defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the non-party company in the middle of October 2016. However, in principle, the guaranteed debt is established for the debt already incurred at the time when the guarantee contract is established, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed the debt that

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow