beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단16549

질권설정해지

Text

1. The Defendant concluded a pledge agreement on the periodical deposit B account of December 14, 2015 with the Plaintiff KRW 1,971,000.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a livestock product transaction agreement with the Defendant, and entered into a pledge agreement with the Defendant on a regular deposit (B) deposited in KRW 15 million on the same day in order to secure the price of goods arising from the said agreement.

B. Around May 17, 2016, there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the amount of the price of goods unpaid between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the supply transaction of livestock products between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was suspended.

C. The Plaintiff terminated the pledge agreement on the livestock products transaction agreement and the periodical deposit contract with the instant complaint.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of goods unpaid to the defendant is merely KRW 1,971,00,000, and the pledge exceeding the amount should be terminated, and the terminated regular deposit should be returned to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that not only KRW 1,971,00, but also KRW 5,371,800, which was delivered to Nonparty C under the name of Nonparty D operated by the Plaintiff, the total sum of KRW 7,342,80 is secured by the said pledge.

B. 1) Determination 1) There is no mutual dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the termination of the said livestock products transaction agreement and the said pledge agreement, but only there is a dispute as to the scope of the amount secured by the pledge. 2) The amount secured by the pledge is the livestock products price supplied by the Plaintiff from the Defendant, which is the livestock products price supplied by the Plaintiff, and there is no more obligation to pay for the goods in addition to KRW 1,97

First, the price of the above 5,371,80 won in dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is KRW 798,40 in supply as of November 24, 2015, KRW 2,777,120 in December 3, 2015, KRW 1,213,080 in December 11, 2015, and KRW 583,200 in December 14, 2015.

Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 4 shall be stated either in dispute between the parties or in the evidence of No. 1, 2, and 4.