beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.04 2018가단551540

부인의 청구를 인용하는 결정에 대한 이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Claim for denial between the Plaintiff and the Defendant of Suwon District Court 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B around July 2010, in order to prepare a lease deposit for the operation of the store for the sale of children’s clothes, the mother requested the Plaintiff to lend money.

Accordingly, on July 26, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 149,850,000 from the D Bank, and thereafter lent KRW 90 million to B on August 4, 2010, and KRW 27 million on August 4, 2010.

B. B, while closing down a store for selling children’s clothes around March 2015, B received a refund of KRW 90 million from a lessor, and paid it to the Plaintiff on March 11, 2015.

C. B, on July 3, 2015, filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the court below 2015Hadan3300, and was declared bankrupt on April 26, 2016, and the Defendant was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.

Around August 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for denial against the Plaintiff by this court against the Plaintiff with respect to the act that B paid KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff. On September 21, 2018, the court rendered a ruling to the effect that the said monetary payment constituted “an act of extinguishing a debt that does not belong to the debtor’s obligation” under Article 391 subparag. 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”) or “an act of having the debtor known that it would damage a bankruptcy creditor” under subparagraph 1 of the same Article, and that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 90 million to the Defendant” (hereinafter “the instant ruling”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Evidence Nos. 1 to 7, and whole purport of pleading No. 1 to 7

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, at the request of B, intended to borrow money for the payment of the lease deposit, etc. and then receive the refund of the lease deposit at the later time. Thus, the time of repayment by B cannot be deemed to constitute the extinguishment of the obligation that does not belong to the obligor’s duty.

B. The plaintiff.