beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.
3.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the mother of B, who is the representative of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and served as the auditor of the said company.
B. C and the Defendant entered into a contract under which the Defendant will act on behalf of the Defendant for the import business of C (hereinafter “instant import agency contract”). In order to establish the necessary import L/C in the Bank of Korea by proxy, the Plaintiff provided the land and its ground buildings in Yangcheon-gu Seoul (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) owned by the Plaintiff as collateral and completed the registration of the establishment of the mortgage for each real estate of this case on March 13, 2008 with the maximum amount of claims KRW 240 million.
C. The defendant, on March 13, 2008, obtained a loan of KRW 200 million from the bank in the name of the defendant (hereinafter "the regular deposit account of this case"), and deposited the money in the regular deposit account in the name of the defendant (hereinafter "the regular deposit account of this case"), and the bank of this case established a pledge against KRW 200 million deposited in the regular deposit account of this case in order to secure the claim for reimbursement of the revenue to be borne by the defendant or C.
Since then, in order to repay the loan of KRW 200 million, from March 31, 2009 to June 30, 201, the total of KRW 166,680,000 was withdrawn from the instant regular deposit account as principal, and the total of KRW 28,11,623 was withdrawn from April 14, 2008 to August 13, 201, and the principal was 33,320,000 as of August 31, 201 (=20 million - 16,680,000 won). However, on August 31, 201, the Plaintiff repaid the said KRW 33,20,000 to cancel the collateral security of the KF Bank established in each of the instant real estate.
E. Meanwhile, although C imported goods under the name of the Defendant and sold them domestically, the Defendant did not pay the price and incidental expenses under the import agency contract of this case to the Defendant. The Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price on January 19, 2012 to the Defendant on the due date of the credit.