logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.11.12 2019가단109899
구상금
Text

1. It was concluded on November 21, 2018 between a limited liability company B and the Defendant with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B 1) The Plaintiff is a limited company B (hereinafter “B”).

(2) B entered into a credit guarantee agreement with a company bank and issued a credit guarantee agreement with a maximum amount of KRW 80 million on March 30, 2016. (2) B obtained a loan of KRW 100,000 from a branch in M&C as collateral.

3) However, on January 15, 2019, B caused a guarantee accident due to a defect in business place, etc., and the Plaintiff paid 80,000,000, interest 1,237,065 won to an enterprise bank in subrogation of B, and the unpaid balance out of the legal procedure costs is KRW 1,737,293. 4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff has a claim for indemnity amounting to KRW 82,974,358.

B. On November 21, 2018, B entered into a contract for the creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate owned by the Defendant, (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Defendant on November 21, 2018, and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 275,00,000 on the 22th day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and evidence of the establishment of fraudulent act 1, namely, at the time of the establishment of the mortgage contract of this case, there was a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B under the credit guarantee agreement at the time of the establishment of the mortgage contract of this case, and there was a high probability of the occurrence of the above credit accident at the time of the short time. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B becomes a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act

However, B establishes the right to collateral security to the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate, which is the only property under excess of the obligation.

arrow