beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.31 2018가합584242

청구이의

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) was declared bankrupt on July 1, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap88, and the Defendant was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

B. On August 25, 2009, D loaned KRW 2.9 billion to Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. as of November 25, 2009 (after this, extended to January 26, 201). The Plaintiff B and C guaranteed each of the above loan obligations up to KRW 4,060,000.

C. D on June 29, 201, transferred the above loan claims to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and notified the Plaintiffs of such transfer.

D and the Korea Asset Management Corporation terminated an agreement on May 3, 2013, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation sent the content-certified mail stating the cancellation of the above assignment contract to the Plaintiffs on May 10, 2013.

E. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiffs for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 495,109,821 out of the principal and interest of loan KRW 3,849,732,217 with this court, and this court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on December 10, 2014.

The instant payment order was finalized on October 15, 2015.

F. At the time of the application for the instant payment order, the Defendant did not enter the fact that D transferred the above loan claims to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the fact that the above assignment of claims was cancelled in the claim

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence (including each number, and hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since Plaintiff 1D lost its claim for the above loan with the transfer of credit, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case cannot be permitted.

The rescission of an agreement on the assignment of claims constitutes a re-transfer of claims that have no retroactive effect, and D re-transfer of claims due to the rescission of the agreement on the assignment of claims.