(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가단5042703

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가단5042703

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B (1) Nonparty B (hereinafter “B”) requested the Plaintiff to obtain a loan from the foreign exchange bank and the corporate bank, and the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee contract with B and issued a credit guarantee certificate, and the B was given a loan from the foreign exchange bank and the corporate bank in accordance with the credit guarantee contract.

(2) However, as of March 28, 2005, the Company B caused a credit guarantee accident due to the current fault, and the Plaintiff subrogated to the foreign exchange bank and the Enterprise Bank for the obligations of Company B.

(3) On June 12, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a demand for reimbursement claim against the representative director C of Suwon District Court, a joint guarantor under the Credit Guarantee Agreement and the company B, the joint guarantor of the company B, and the credit guarantee agreement, and received a payment order on June 12, 2006 to the effect that “B and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 179,851,62 won and KRW 131,620 among them, and KRW 131,660 from August 26, 2005, KRW 46,873,972 from September 5, 2005 to the date of receiving the original copy of the payment order, KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of receiving the original copy of the payment order, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.” The payment order was finalized on August 5, 2006.

(4) Meanwhile, as of March 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim amount against B Company B is identical to the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

B. On the other hand, D, an employee of the Defendant Company, established the Defendant Company with the same main business purpose as B on September 9, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant Company was established for the purpose of evading the indemnity obligation owed to the Plaintiff while Nonparty C operated the Company B, and has an independent form of legal entity. However, it is merely merely taking the form of legal entity.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.03.04 2014가단36114

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.24 2015가합762

-전주지방법원군산지원 2015.12.24 2015가합11344

-울산지방법원 2013.06.14 2013고정367

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.24 2018고정2774