logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가합514990
채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Seoul Central District Court No. 2014.92 dated January 29, 2015

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for taking over the business of a factory including each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant contract for taking over the business of this case”).

B. Dongyang Co., Ltd. filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma186 and received a decision on the commencement of rehabilitation procedures on October 17, 2013 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”); A, appointed as a custodian, resigned on April 15, 2015; B, appointed as a custodian on the same day; and B took over the instant litigation procedures; thereafter, B divided the company into a new one and transferred the rights and duties regarding the avoidance lawsuit, etc.; according to the revision of the rehabilitation plan as of January 8, 2016, C and C were divided from the said company and transferred the rights and duties of Dongyang Co., Ltd. related to the instant lawsuit. On January 14, 2016, the Defendant took over the instant litigation procedures.

(C) With respect to the East and East Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Tynasium, the debtor does not divide the period before and after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, but before and after the division of the company (hereinafter “debtor”).

The plaintiff reported the rehabilitation claim to the following contents in the rehabilitation procedure of this case, and at the time of the debtor's joint management, A and D denied the amount reported as the plaintiff's rehabilitation claim.

The cause and content of rehabilitation claims: 2,00,000,000 won in the absence of ownership in the war of the principal amount: 2,00,000,000 won in the amount of principal transfer and/or 2,00,000 won in the event of a breach of contract;

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s purport is that “The rehabilitation claim against a debtor is a penalty of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 for delayed payment from the date of concluding the contract, and the right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the instant contract for the transfer of business” as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201

arrow