beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가합511398

사해행위취소

Text

1. C Co., Ltd.’s face value of KRW 1,500,000,000 for the Defendant on October 15, 2015, and the payee, the place of issuance, and the place of payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of credit fraternity business, etc., and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) is a company with the objective of selling and buying non-performing loans and other property rights entitled to asset-backed securitization or investing in them.

(2) On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an asset acquisition agreement and a contract on the transfer of the purchaser status (hereinafter “instant asset acquisition agreement”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s sales price of KRW 70,706,69,000 with D to sell non-performing loans in the purchase price of KRW 70,706,69,000.

3) D was obligated to pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff by March 26, 2015 under the instant asset acquisition agreement. However, upon newly preparing an agreement on the alteration of the asset acquisition agreement and the transfer of purchaser status on March 27, 2015, D and C and the Plaintiff transferred D’s all rights and obligations under the instant asset acquisition agreement to C, and decided to postpone the payment date until March 30, 2015. (b) D were to enter into a loan agreement and the pledge agreement on claims, and the contract on the payment date for the purchase price to be deferred by March 30, 2015 (hereinafter “E”) with priority on a lender for the purpose of raising the purchase price of the secured non-performing loans that the Plaintiff acquired from the Plaintiff on March 27, 2015 (hereinafter “E”), and to enter into the loan agreement with each of the Plaintiff as the lender, and to have the loan amount of KRW 59,100,000,000,000 (hereinafter “loan”).

Article 4(2) and (3) of the Loan Agreement of this case set up a pledge of the secured non-performing loans subject to the Assets Transfer Agreement of this case (hereinafter “objected Bonds”) as collateral for the said loans to E and the Plaintiff, and F. In relation to the financing management.