logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.19 2016가합60460
근저당권말소
Text

1. On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) filed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for KRW 386,407,793 and interest.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) entered into a sales contract with D (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the content that supply the storage batteries produced by C to D and sell them to the consumers of members of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul”) around 199.

B. Meanwhile, in order to secure the performance of the goods price obligation to D under the sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff signed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring real estate set forth in the attached Table No. 3 of April 15, 199 as C, ① the maximum debt amount of 48,00,000,000, the debtor D, and the mortgagee C, ② the maximum debt amount of 120,000,000, the debtor D, and the mortgagee with respect to each real estate set forth in the attached Table No. 1 and No. 2 of July 7, 1999 as a joint and several surety, and signed the registration of the establishment of each neighboring real estate set forth in the attached Table No. 1 and No. 1 of the attached Table No. 1 and No. 2 as C (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “the registration of the establishment of each neighboring real estate set forth in each of the above cases”).

C. C changed the trade name to E Co., Ltd. on January 13, 2000, and E Co., Ltd. was merged with F Co., Ltd. on January 2, 2009 (hereinafter “F”).

F changed the trade name to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) on May 8, 2013.

B. On November 1, 201, F entered into a product supply contract with the content that F sells the storage batteries supplied by F (hereinafter “instant product supply contract”) with D (hereinafter “instant product supply contract”); and the instant product supply contract and the instant sales contract, collectively, “instant agency contract”).

The plaintiff asserts that there is no signature of H, the representative director of D in the product supply contract of this case, and D does not keep the product supply contract of this case.

arrow