beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.05.20 2018가합104497

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s status and the Plaintiff is a legal entity that purchases, sells, and collects non-performing loans.

The Plaintiff acquired corporate bonds against E from the limited liability company C (hereinafter referred to as “C company”), the Small and Medium Business Corporation, and D limited partnership companies in sequence.

B. The rehabilitation procedures for E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) are corporations engaged in steel sales business.

E applied for rehabilitation on October 13, 2008, and the rehabilitation procedure began on November 6, 2008.

E repaid the amount of KRW 3,837,846,00 according to the revised rehabilitation plan and KRW 1,801,841,000 according to the rehabilitation security right.

The rehabilitation procedure for E was completed on March 21, 2011.

(Resan District Court 2008 Ma12). (c)

1) The rehabilitation procedure for the Defendant was commenced on September 29, 2010 after the Defendant borrowed KRW 164,864,903 from F to repay all the tax and rehabilitation claims, and the rehabilitation procedure for the Defendant was completed on April 21, 2011 (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Nu24 delivered by the Defendant on December 24, 2010). The Defendant, as of September 29, 2010, entered the rehabilitation plan for the Defendant as of December 24, 2010, the rehabilitation plan for the Defendant, as of September 29, 2010, the amount of the Defendant’s debt to be repaid is indicated as “10,68,65,681, the amount of debt to be repaid,” and “A company subject to repayment” as of September 29, 2010.

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 (including evidence with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. After the rehabilitation procedure for E, F was holding 100% of the shares of E. However, the Defendant acquired shares equivalent to 73% of the total number of shares issued from F in around 2015, and the remainder is equivalent to 27% of the total number of shares issued.