beta
Text
1. Defendant A and B jointly and severally filed a claim against the Plaintiff KRW 40,269,331 and its related amount from September 17, 2019 to November 8, 2019.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the instant claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and B are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40,269,31 of indemnity and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from September 17, 2019, to November 8, 2019, when the last copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Plaintiff, the date of subrogation, and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The mortgage contract concluded on March 11, 2019 between Defendant B and Defendant C constitutes a fraudulent act, and thereby, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to cancel the fraudulent act, and thereby, Defendant C is obligated to perform the registration procedure for the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant establishment registration procedure”).
Defendant C’s assertion and determination at the request of Defendant C, a senior mother, lent KRW 25,00,00 to Defendant C on October 27, 2017 at the request of Defendant C, a senior mother, for lending KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant Company on March 11, 2019.
At the time, Defendant C was unaware of the excess of the obligation of Defendant C, and thus is a bona fide beneficiary.
Judgment
Although the debtor had the intent to revise the project or to continue the project, it was intended for the debtor to do so.
However, barring any special circumstance, the act of offering security to one of its creditors without a new loan constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104564, Apr. 29, 2010). Thus, Defendant C’s act constitutes Defendant B, barring any special circumstance.