logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나74916
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional judgments pursuant to paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, prior to the change of the Plaintiff (the trade name before the change: H; hereinafter “H”), the Plaintiff filed a report on the change of the trade name with a bankruptcy creditor, and that, thereafter, the Plaintiff was unable to modify the list of creditors because it was unaware of the change of the trade name to A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), and that the Plaintiff did not enter the claim against the Defendant of D Bank and E Bank in bad faith in the list of creditors (hereinafter “each claim of this case”).

In light of the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff changed the name from H to H as of March 26, 2013, and the Defendant stated the Plaintiff (H) in the creditors list at the time of the bankruptcy application application application on December 20, 2012. However, each of the claims of this case was omitted in the creditors list. (3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s application on June 21, 2013, the D Bank claims, and E Bank claims on June 28, 2013, and notified C of the assignment of claims on June 28, 2013; (4) the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation on July 16, 2013, the I card, and the E Card as the creditors list; and (2) the Defendant did not appear to have received the Plaintiff’s application for the alteration of the Plaintiff’s trade name or the claims of this case, and in light of these facts, the Defendant did not appear to have received the Plaintiff’s application for the alteration from each of the creditors.

① On December 20, 2012, when the Defendant applied for immunity, the Plaintiff mutually.

arrow