beta
(영문) 부산지방법원서부지원 2020.04.09 2017가합102049

손해배상청구의 소

Text

1. Defendants B, C, and D jointly share KRW 612,249,895 with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from March 2, 2017 to November 2, 2017.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. Defendant B is a person who imports fishery products under the trade name of “G”, and the Plaintiff is a bank that issued a letter of credit to Defendant B.

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is a company that has brokered with respect to fishery products imported by Defendant B, and Defendant C is the representative director of Defendant D.

Defendant E is a staff member of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) stored the same fishery products imported by Defendant F as a bonded warehouse operator, and the same fishery products imported by Defendant F in his bonded warehouse.

B. In order to import each fishery product listed in the separate sheet 1, 200 US$30,000 on August 25, 2014, Defendant B entered into a credit transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on August 26, 2015, under which the credit limit amount of the said credit transaction agreement was increased to US$50,000 on August 26, 2015, and under which the credit limit amount of the said credit transaction agreement was increased to US$1,20,000 again on November 3, 2015.

(hereinafter “each of the instant credit transaction agreements”). In order to secure the repayment of obligations under each of the instant credit transaction agreements that Defendant B owes to the Plaintiff, Defendant B created a security interest on each of the instant fishery products listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2014.

C. According to Defendant B’s request for the issuance of the letter of credit, the Plaintiff respectively issued the letter of credit as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1.

From August 12, 2016 to November 2, 2016, the fishery product of this case was shipped at the Scam Scen of China and at the Scambo, and the Defendant D, the carrier, as shown in the [Attachment 1] column, was “a person who instructs the Plaintiff,” and the notice office is the Defendant.