원고가 이 사건 채권을 대위할 수 있는지 여부[각하]
Whether the plaintiff can subrogate the claim of this case
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a claim againstCC, the Plaintiff may not subrogate theCC.
Article 404 of the Civil Act
Incheon District Court 2015 Ghana 235833
AA
BB Director of the Tax Office
August 26, 2016
November 4, 2016
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff has a claim againstCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC").
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on behalf ofCC on the premise that the Plaintiff was in existence, the Plaintiff first filed the lawsuit.
We examine whetherCC has claims.
The Plaintiff asserts thatCC lent KRW 22,80,000 to October 14, 2013, KRW 19,000 to December 3, 12 of the same year, KRW 3,000,000 on December 11 of the same year, KRW 15,00,000 on May 7, 2014, KRW 13,000,000 on May 15, 201, and KRW 17,00,000 on May 15 of the same year, respectively.
According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 8, 22,80,000 won on October 14, 2013, and 12.
3. It can be recognized that KRW 19,000,000 has been transferred from the account of DDR to the FF’s account, and KRW 3,000,000 has been transferred from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the FF’s account on December 11, 2013, but the said transfer alone does not mean that the Plaintiff lent the said amount toCC, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Next, 15,00,000 won for May 7, 2014, and 13,000,000 won for May 12, 2014, and 5.
15. Regarding the assertion that loans KRW 17,00,000 were lent to the Plaintiff, according to the health certificate No. 9, the amount of each of the above amounts on each of the above dates may be recognized as the fact that the GGG issued a bill to the Plaintiff. However, according to the evidence No. 9 through No. 12,CC closed its business on April 11, 2003, and the facts that the GGG was appointed as the liquidator ofCC on May 7, 2014 can be acknowledged. The liquidator’s authority and authority are limited to the liquidation affairs, such as the termination of existing business affairs, and there is no power of representation with respect to any borrowing of new money, etc., and thus, it cannot be said that the validity of the above bill issued by GIST belongs toCC.
Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence No. 6, GGG prepared and executed a notarized promissory note with the amount paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 95,000,000 on September 29, 2014. However, it cannot be said that GG’s act as a liquidator’s position has an effect onCC as seen earlier.
Ultimately, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a claim againstCC, the Plaintiff cannot subrogate it. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.