logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.07.20 2015가단51277
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. As the Defendant, on March 8, 2013, agreed to provide the Plaintiff’s assertion as collateral and obtain a loan from a financial institution to pay KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,00 and delay damages therefor.

B. The defendant's representative director E lent KRW 1,287,00,000 to F Co., Ltd. from around 2004 to 2005. The defendant's representative director Eul lent KRW 1,287,00,00 to Eul, which guaranteed the above loan obligation, to Eul, the 130 households of the D apartment house in Jung-up H at Jung-Eup (hereinafter "D apartment").

(2) On June 21, 201, the Defendant acquired, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on D apartment on September 15, 2010, a decision to permit the sale of D apartment on September 15, 201, and entered into a contract to assign D apartment to I for KRW 1,400,000,000, and received KRW 500,000 from I. 2) Meanwhile, the Defendant purchased, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant land as the receipt of a maximum debt amount of KRW 8472,00,00 from the Gwangju District Court on June 24, 201, the obligor, and Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “instant land”).

(1) The court below held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to collateral security on the above registration, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security. The court below held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security and the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security upon the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security and the right to collateral security on the right to collateral security.

arrow