logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.21 2016가합110858
사해행위취소 등
Text

1. It was concluded on December 15, 2014 between the Defendant and C (D) with respect to the restaurant business listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) North Korean defectors C received KRW 350 million from the Plaintiff in relation to Cambodia Home shopping business in around 2013, and on October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of commitment to return the said money to the Plaintiff by February 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).

(2) On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kahap3854, which was the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Gahap3854, and rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “C shall pay KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff by October 31, 2015.” The Plaintiff and C did not raise any objection, thereby became final and conclusive at that time.

B. 1) C is a restaurant listed in the separate sheet of “E” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the separate sheet of “E”

(2) On December 15, 2014, the Defendant, who had been an employee of the instant restaurant, evaluated all food materials as inventory assets, 35.75 million won as fixed assets, and transferred the equipment to the Defendant, who had been an employee of the instant restaurant, as well as KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant business transfer”).

2) Since then C, C cancelled its business registration regarding the instant restaurant, and the Defendant completed its business registration under its name for the instant restaurant business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 C prepared a letter of payment in this case that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff, but failed to comply with it, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant letter of payment was transferred to the Defendant, who was an employee of the instant restaurant, the only property of the instant restaurant, becomes insolvent or the insolvency was deepened.

arrow