beta
Text
The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,552,917 and KRW 36,701,476 among them, from December 3, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) with an option printing machine at KRW 150,00,00, and KRW 36 months during the lease term, monthly lease fee of KRW 3,231,41, annual interest rate of KRW 5.3%, annual interest rate of KRW 5.3%, annual damages for delay, and KRW 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, Defendant D guaranteed the obligation owed by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement as the representative of the Defendant Company.
B. According to the instant lease agreement, when the payment of rent was delayed on more than two consecutive occasions, the Defendant Company, the lessee, was obligated to pay the obligation under the instant lease agreement in lump sum by losing the benefit of time, and the Plaintiff, the obligee, can terminate the lease agreement.
(Article 20). The Defendant Company lost the benefit of time due to the long-term default of the lease fee stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and accordingly, the instant lease agreement was terminated on June 18, 2019.
C. As of December 2, 2019, the interest of the lease accrued under the instant lease agreement is KRW 41,552,917, and the unpaid principal is KRW 36,701,406.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the accrued interest of 41,52,917 won and the accrued interest of 36,701,406 won and the accrued interest of 36,701,406 won, calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from December 3, 2019 to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, Defendant D asserts to the effect that, at the time of the instant joint and several sureties, Defendant D was merely the representative under the name of the joint and several sureties, and immediately retired after the said guarantee, Defendant D did not have the responsibility
However, the defendant D is the representative of the defendant company.