보증채무금 청구의 소
1. The defendant shall pay 140,000,000 won to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and borrowed KRW 435,00,000 on March 27, 2015, and KRW 950,00,000 on July 28, 2015 (hereinafter “each loan”).
around that time, the defendant set the limit on the guarantee amount of each of the loans to D B as KRW 522,00,000,000, and the joint and several guarantee amount as KRW 114,00,000, respectively.
The maximum guarantee amount was reduced to KRW 140,000,000 each on January 24, 2019, including KRW 83,000,000, KRW 57,000,000.
B. D filed an application for corporate rehabilitation on January 7, 2019.
D is unable to pay each principal and interest of 1,174,043,830 won as of February 21, 2019.
C. B entered into an asset transfer agreement with E Co., Ltd. on February 28, 2019, and entered into an asset transfer agreement with E Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor on March 26, 2019, transferred the loan claims and creditor status to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, and notified the Defendant on April 1, 2019.
The notification was reached by the receiver and the defendant around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 (if there are various numbers, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay 140,000,000 won to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff who acquired the guarantee claim from B within the scope of the guarantee limit.
Since the defendant is under the corporate rehabilitation procedure for the principal debtor D, it may be repaid in that procedure.
B or on December 19, 2018, with the above claim as the preserved claim, attached a provisional seizure on real estate owned by the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2018Kadan45598). Thus, the Plaintiff’s successor’s claim is unreasonable.
However, such circumstance alone is the plaintiff.