beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Case summary
A. In accordance with a credit guarantee agreement concluded with B around October 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) subrogated repayment of KRW 259,451,205 of the B’s debt on May 29, 2018; and (b) owned a claim against B for indemnity (payment order before Daegu District Court 2018), and (b) on December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on December 1, 2017 with regard to real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”); and (c) completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum amount of the claim as KRW 200,00,000 on the same day, there is no dispute between the parties.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant mortgage contract constitutes an act of infringing the Plaintiff as a gold obligee of the said claim for reimbursement, and sought the revocation and restitution (as stated in the attached Table 1’s attached hereto, the Defendant’s transfer of the claim regarding the amount paid by the Defendant based on the said mortgage) against the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. The debtor's continuous business is the best way to suspend the supply of goods necessary for the business by receiving notification from the purchaser in a continuous business relationship to the effect that the debtor would not provide a security for the credit purchase price, and it is thought that the continuous business is the best way to exercise the ability to repay the debt. Even if the debtor's real estate owned by the debtor is in excess of the debt to receive the goods, and if the debtor provided the goods to a specific creditor as security and received the goods from the specific creditor, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of creation of security interest does not constitute an act of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da25842, Mar. 29, 2002; 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 2011). (b) The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each of the items stated in Gap evidence No. 8, 10, and Eul evidence No. 1 through 3 (including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
1) B is a manufacturer of metal structure products, and the Defendant.