beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 20, 2015 to March 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 2010, the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on a fixed period of 200 million won for lease deposit, 12 million won for rent, and 60 months for lease. The Defendant, instead of separately entering into a contract for lease on a deposit basis, completed the registration of chonsegwon as of March 5, 2010 as of January 22, 2015, instead of entering into a contract for lease on a deposit basis.
B. On March 11, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to collateral security of KRW 100 million with respect to the registration of the right to collateral security of the said right to collateral security of KRW 100 million.
C. The Plaintiff, based on the subrogation of the expiration date of chonsegwon’s term of lease on a deposit basis, received a seizure and collection order regarding the amount equivalent to KRW 100 million out of C’s claim for return of lease on a deposit basis (Ulsan District Court Order 2015TTT1252 dated February 3, 2015) against the Defendant on February 6, 2015.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purpose of all pleadings
2. On February 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the collection amount by February 19, 2015, the Defendant asserts that: (a) the Defendant has a claim of KRW 149,179,320 with respect to overdue rent and electricity; and (b) the management expenses claim; and (c) the Plaintiff’s claim does not bear an obligation upon offsetting the amount of the collection amount with the claim first incurred in preference to the Plaintiff’
Even if the Defendant had a claim against C against the Defendant, the Plaintiff is in the position of a bona fide third party, a bona fide third party, who had a new interest based on the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with the Defendant, and the Defendant cannot assert to the Plaintiff the claim for overdue rent and management expenses, etc. against C arising from a lease agreement that cannot be compatible with the contract to lease on a deposit basis, and the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, unlike the deposit for lease, is against the settlor of a right to lease on a deposit basis.