logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.03 2014가합45350
회생채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의
Text

1. The final claim inspection judgment of Seoul Central District Court No. 2014da807 dated August 6, 2014 shall be amended as follows:

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (the original name of the Plaintiff Company was the Character Savings Bank, which changed its trade name as of December 23, 2013.

(2) The debtor A Co., Ltd. (former Co., Ltd., but its trade name was changed as of April 1, 2015; hereinafter “debtor Co., Ltd.”) is a company that engages in the information and communications network and system design, construction, operation, maintenance and repair business, etc.

D was the head of the system operation headquarters of the debtor company.

3) E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

A) A company is established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling telecommunications equipment, and F is the E’s representative director. G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”).

A) A company is established for the purpose of manufacturing telecommunications equipment, ancillary equipment, etc., and H was the representative director of G. I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

) A company is established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electronic equipment, and J is an internal director with the authority of representation of I. K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”).

) A company is established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling telecommunications equipment, etc. and L is an internal director with the K’s power of representation (E, G, I, and K are co-contractors of the debtor company and, in case of a common name, “the instant co-contractors”, and in the case of a common name called F, H, J, and L, the representative of which is “the instant co-contractors.”

(B) B. B. D and partner company’s loan fraud 1) The debtor company did not receive mobile phone, etc. from the partner company in this case, and there was no sales claim against the partner company in this case. Accordingly, the partner company in this case was naturally unable to obtain a loan from the financial institution directly or through a special purpose corporation (SPC) as security.

2. However, D.

arrow