(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.10.04 2017가단23519

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.10.04 2017가단23519

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of reinforced concrete construction business.

D On May 11, 2016, each agent of both the plaintiff and the creditor who are the debtor and the defendant is a joint and several surety, and the notary public entrusted C with the preparation of a notarial deed on the loan certificate as of May 11, 2016.

On May 11, 2016, C, a notary public, drafted the instant notarial deed containing the following: “The Defendant, on May 11, 2016, lent KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff (debtor) at the maturity of October 11, 2016 and interest rate of KRW 25% per annum; D, up to the limit of KRW 50 million until October 11, 2026, is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed by the notary public; if the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her duties immediately, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution.”

E was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company on August 11, 2015, but resigned on July 5, 2016, and on the same day, F was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

E is the husband of D, and G is the child of D.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the purport of the plaintiff's assertion in the whole pleadings are null and void for the following reasons.

① The instant notarial deed is in substance a guarantee given by the Plaintiff Company for the personal debt of D, which is not an act within the purpose or business scope of the Plaintiff Company.

② D’s act of recommending guarantee of D’s obligation as the representative of the Plaintiff Company constitutes one’s own transaction with the company and directors, and is null and void since it did not go through the approval procedure of the board of directors.

③ At the time of the Notarial Deed, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company abused his power of representation for the purpose of promoting personal interest.

Although the argument of the plaintiff in this part is not clear, it is so decided as above.

Judgment

First of all, the plaintiff's above assertion is about whether it goes beyond the purpose or business scope of the company.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.08.18 2016가합101896

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.10 2019가단112899

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.10.16 2014가합2679

-서울동부지방법원 2016.04.29 2015가합110070

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.07 2016가합55179