beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a company that runs a facility leasing business.
On November 21, 2019, the Suwon District Court decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings 2019 Gohap181 on November 21, 2019. The defendant who was the representative director of the non-party company was appointed as the administrator.
B. On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with H on the condition that H shall pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 4,267,960 on the movable property listed in attached Table No. 1 in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into the “lease No. 1 agreement” with the Plaintiff and H to the effect that the non-party company succeeds to the contractual status of H’s first lease agreement.
C. On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Nonparty Company (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the effect that the Nonparty Company shall pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 1,237,50 (1~3 times) or KRW 6,267,60 (4-51 times) on the movables listed in attached Table No. 2 in attached Table No. 2. D.
As the non-party company delayed the payment of each lease fee stipulated under the lease agreement Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case, the Plaintiff sent to the non-party company a letter verifying the content of “pre-determination of termination” on October 7, 2019, notified the non-party company to pay the amount of arrears within 10 days from the arrival date of the content-certified mail, and, if not, notified the non-party company that it would immediately terminate the contract without any separate notice.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 24 (including each number), or the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The non-party company did not perform its duty to pay each lease fee stipulated in the lease agreement of the case Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff was against the non-party company.