beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.11.18 2019가단543767

손해배상(기)

Text

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff: (a) loaned KRW 500 million to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”); and (b) obtained a security right to transfer to the storage tanks installed on Pyeongtaek-si H land owned by Defendant C; (c) the Plaintiff acquired the outstanding principal and interest on Nonparty C by taking over the outstanding principal and interest on Nonparty C; and (d) subsequently, in collusion between Defendant C and Defendant D, the Plaintiff incurred losses for which the Plaintiff could not exercise the security right to transfer by allowing the storage tanks to be sold to others at the auction procedure; and (e) Defendant E and F, who were the representative director at each time, jointly and severally and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the damages amount of KRW 196,283,381 due to the loss of the security right to transfer and the delay damages therefrom; and (e) the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for compensation as the damages claim against the Plaintiff on the ground that the right to transfer was extinguished by the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff on May 12, 201.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment as the Gwangju District Court 2018Na66004, and the Defendant jointly changed the cause of the claim and infringed on the right to transfer security of the bank. Thus, the bank has a tort damages claim against the Defendants. The Plaintiff acquired the outstanding principal and interest on the Defendant’s transfer from the bank and acquired the above claim for damages against the Defendants. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 196,283,381 and its delayed damages to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the said court claimed that the Defendants would be liable to pay the transfer amount to the Defendants. Accordingly, the said court claimed that the Nonparty bank claimed the payment of the transfer amount against the Defendants.