beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 20, 2006, C entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the “Damju-si D Apartment 101 Dong 207” owned by the Plaintiff.
한편, C는 ‘E’라는 상호로 윤활유 판매 영업을 하고 있었는데, 자신의 에스케이네트웍스㈜(이하 ‘SK'라고만 함)에 대한 물품대금채무를 담보하기 위해 2006. 12. 4. 원고에 대한 임대차보증금채권을 SK에 양도하는 계약을 체결하였다.
The Defendant was SK’s employee, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the following terms (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
The Agreement of this case
1. The Plaintiff shall cooperate with E to pay the debt (50 million won) due to the E’s repayment (E).
2. In the event that a debt of KRW 50 million is paid to E, it provides a security for the Plaintiff’s right to lease on a deposit basis established as security to SK until May 10, 2011.
F transferred KRW 30 million to the account in the name of C on April 7, 2011, and on May 9, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the account in the name of G (GH company) in which E was an employee.
SK filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff (U.S. District Court 2014da66440) seeking payment of C's obligation, and the above court rendered a judgment citing all the claims of SK on July 17, 2015 on the ground that the plaintiff is responsible for repaying C's obligation as the guarantor.
In the above lawsuit, the plaintiff asserted that the guarantee agreement under the assignment of claims was invalidated by fulfilling all of the contract in this case, but the above court rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff fulfilled the contract in this case.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted and judged that although the contract of this case was concluded with the defendant, who is a staff member in charge of SK, and all of them were fulfilled, the defendant's failure to terminate the security under the agreement of this case is above 50 million won.