채무부존재확인
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs is modified as follows. A.
The plaintiffs against the defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Contents of the complaint] The 12th 15th 16th 12th 12th 15 and 16th 16th 2th 16th 2th 16th 2th 200 "not only can the above amended provisions which have not yet been enforced with respect to the loan transaction agreement of this case be applied, but also can not be applied to the above amended provisions which have not yet been enforced at the time of
Part 13 through 17 of the Decision of the first instance shall be stated in the following order:
G. Determination of the Plaintiffs’ assertion of repayment according to the rehabilitation plan 1) The Defendant’s assertion that part of the credit sales claims were paid out in cash in the course of the rehabilitation procedure for FFC, and as such, it should be appropriated for the repayment of the loan claims against the Plaintiffs.
2) Determination A) In a case where, for securing a loan claim, an obligor transferred to a creditor another claim against a third party for the purpose of securing the claim, the transferred claim was reported as a rehabilitation claim to a creditor in the rehabilitation procedure against a third party after the date of the transfer, and the rehabilitation plan was fully or partially converted into equity according to the rehabilitation plan, and the rehabilitation claim was to substitute for the repayment of the rehabilitation claim, the obligee’s claim corresponding to the appraised value of new shares acquired by the obligee as of the date when the issuance of the new shares becomes effective shall be deemed to have been repaid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da54168, Apr. 9, 2015). In such a case, the burden of proving the value per share
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da85830, Mar. 25, 2010). In this case, the Seoul Central District Court Order 2014Nu10090, Aug. 26, 2014.