logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.01.14 2015가단14493
대여금
Text

1. As to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 66,44,775 won;

B. Defendant A and B are jointly and severally liable for 59,136.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2005, Suwon District Court Decision 2005Kadan4283 rendered a judgment that "the defendant and the defendants jointly and severally pay to the foreign bank 118,403,58 won, and D, the defendant and Eul jointly and severally pay KRW 59,136,301 won," and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

B. The Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the non-party bank (the bankruptcy of August 20, 2008) and received dividends of KRW 51,958,813 in the Suwon District Court E of Pyeongtaek Housing Site for the real estate owned by the Defendant C.

C. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and notified the Defendants of the transfer of the claim.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 5 through 10, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff transferred all the claims against the Defendants to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 66,44,775 (=18,403,588 - 51,958,813), and Defendant A and B jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 59,136,301 to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff was unable to respond to the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor since they recovered all the amount of claims in the auction procedure regarding real estate A owned by the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore,

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants by the succeeding intervenor is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow