beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.19 2014나2044992 (1)

회생채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Seoul Central District Court 2012 Ma4320.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or deletion of the pertinent parts as follows. As such, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court's 16 and 17 decision of the first instance court shall be "decision, including the contents that "each final and conclusive decision," "each final and conclusive decision" (the part of paragraph 2).

B. The first instance court's first instance court's decision that "it is difficult to determine, and the same shall apply to the case where each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 19 and 20 is added."

C. The first instance court’s decision No. 20 of the first instance court’s 11 stated “the Defendant cannot be deemed as a specially related person of I,” which read as “The Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a creditor, contrary to the established position of the Supreme Court’s precedents as seen above, the Defendants cannot be deemed as a specially related person of I, even if both the Plaintiff asserted up to the trial, or the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 21 through No. 23 submitted by the Plaintiff were collected.”

Part 5 of the 13th judgment of the first instance court "(4) of the 5th judgment and the 5th judgment of the court of first instance" shall be "(4) of the amount of damages," and the 6th judgment shall be deleted.

(e)Paragraph 16 to 14 of the decision of the court of first instance are as follows.

【The portion written by the Plaintiff, as of the commencement date of the first loan contract, the Defendants had a lot of security related to the first loan contract, and the amount of the security value was not determined, and the amount equivalent to the security value is not included in the amount of the loss.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 7, 15, and 16, Defendant D and F, a lender of the first loan contract, to secure the above loan claims between M and M at the time of the conclusion of the above contract, in addition to the loan supplement agreement of this case, the right of pledge such as loan, deposit pledge, and equity share pledge.