beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.09.08 2015가합3149

채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소

Text

1. The Ulsan District Court shall authorize the final claim inspection judgment of 2015 Preamble16 dated August 25, 2015.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff supplied steel products to the Port Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Pohang Metal”) and had a total amount of KRW 607,098,903 on April 24, 2012. However, the Plaintiff received a partial repayment of the amount of KRW 437,017,593.

B. On March 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the debtor Hobuk Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”) to secure the claim for the payment of goods against each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (order 5) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as the Busan District Court’s receipt of No. 12275, Mar. 6, 2012, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 700,000,000, the mortgagee, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s debtor’s establishment of a mortgage (order 5).

C. On March 26, 2013, the debtor was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on the basis of Ulsan District Court 2013 Gohap 4 (hereinafter “the first rehabilitation procedure”), and B was appointed as the debtor’s custodian.

In the first rehabilitation procedure on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 437,017,593 to the port metal as a rehabilitation security right. B filed a claim for denial on the ground that the debtor’s act of setting up the right to collateral security under the Ulsan District Court 2013 Time2 constitutes a biased act under Article 100(1)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”). However, on January 22, 2014, the Ulsan District Court dismissed the debtor’s act of setting up the right to collateral security on the ground that the debtor’s act of setting up the right to collateral security may constitute a biased act under Article 100(1)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, but it cannot be acknowledged that there was no awareness that other rehabilitation creditors would harm the other rehabilitation creditors.

E. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with B for a final claim inspection judgment (Ulsan District Court 2013da19) to the effect that “The Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right against the Plaintiff’s debtor is confirmed to be 437,016,593,” and the Ulsan District Court entirely files an application with the Plaintiff on January 27, 2014.