Credit Guarantee Fund

Defendant 1 and 2 (Attorney Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 29, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gahap11212 Decided September 5, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The contract to establish a mortgage between Nonparty 2 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 on May 1, 2006 regarding the 111-1, 29,752 square meters in So-ri, So-ri, So-ri, So-ri, So-ri, So-ri, So-ri, So-ri (hereinafter “the instant forest”); and the contract to establish a mortgage between Nonparty 2 and Defendant 3 on July 5, 2006 regarding the instant forest shall be revoked.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage completed on May 2, 2006 with respect to the forest of this case to Nonparty 2 by the Jung-gu District Court, the High-gu District Court, the Goyang-dong Office, the Goyang-dong Office, the registration office of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on May 2, 2006 by the defendant 3, and the defendant 2 by the defendant 61063 of the same registry office with respect to the forest of this case.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff provided a credit guarantee to the financial institutions of Nonparty 1 as listed below, and Nonparty 2, the representative director of Nonparty 1 corporation, as the representative director of Nonparty 2, jointly and severally guaranteed the total amount of the indemnity amount (including incidental expenses and the rate of delay damages for the indemnity amount, 15% per annum) to be borne by Nonparty 1 corporation when the Plaintiff performed the guaranteed obligation under the credit guarantee under the credit guarantee in the relevant financial institution

The term of guarantee under which the principal of the loan in the original credit guarantee principal is the principal of the loan in the Schedule Financial Institutions (the name of the bank) contained in the main sentence, and the term of guarantee under the contract for the original credit guarantee (the original credit guarantee principal) shall be 680,000,000,000 (the term of guarantee shall be changed to 680,000,000,000,000 on November 23, 2006 (the term of guarantee shall also be changed to November 25, 2006, when the principal of the loan was changed to November 25, 2006). The Bank of Korea's trade bills loans in the Bank of Korea (the term of guarantee shall also be changed to 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. On July 10, 2006, when a guarantee accident registered with the credit management information of a financial institution occurred due to the reasons such as default on national taxes, etc., the Industrial Bank of Korea requested on October 17, 2006 to discharge each guarantee obligation to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2006. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought on November 20, 2006 to Han Bank 685,985,863 won ( principal 680,000 + interest 5,985,863), 2,042,805,479 won (principal 2,00,000,000 +42,000 +482,479) to the Industrial Bank of Korea on November 27, 2006, and 3081,070 won were recovered from the subrogated payment to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2006.

C. The Plaintiff’s performance of the guaranteed obligation against each of the above financial institutions on November 20, 2006 and November 27, 2006, and Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd and Nonparty 2, a joint guarantor, bears the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages for delay for the pertinent amount of subrogated payment by the Bank and the Bank.

D. On May 1, 2006, Nonparty 2 entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant 1 and 2 with respect to the forest of this case with the obligor Nonparty 1 corporation and the maximum debt amount of KRW 400 million. Defendant 1 and 2 on May 2, 2006, Defendant 1 and 2 completed the registration of the creation of the mortgage (hereinafter “the first collateral mortgage”) as to the high-level district court No. 39158 on May 2, 2006. On July 5, 2006, Nonparty 2 entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant 3 as to the forest of this case with the obligor Nonparty 1 corporation and the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.3 billion on July 6, 2006, and completed the registration of the creation of the mortgage (the second collateral mortgage) with the same registry office No. 61063 on July 6, 2006.

[Evidence] Where there is no clear dispute between the parties, evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 14 (if there are serial numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The forest land of this case is a property of value as active property in fact among the property owned by Nonparty 2, and the financial status of Nonparty 1 corporation has rapidly deteriorated since 2006. In order for Nonparty 2, who was in excess of the obligation, to secure only the existing claim of the Defendants, part of the creditors, the first collateral mortgage contract between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 on May 1, 2006, and the second collateral mortgage contract between Defendant 3 and Defendant 3 on July 5, 2006, with the awareness that the act of entering into a second collateral mortgage contract between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 on July 1, 2006, may cause the lack of common collateral for the claims of general creditors, such as the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement. Accordingly, each contract of the first and second collateral mortgage constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the foundation of the foundation of Defendant 1 and the second collateral mortgage is not exempted.

3. Determination

A. The financial resources of Nonparty 2

In light of the overall purport of arguments and arguments regarding the non-party 10, 13, 14, 15, and 17, the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 are more than 8 billion won for joint and several debt 10,000,000,000 won and 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 25,000,00,000,000,000,000 KRW 15,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 2,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 2,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won, aggregate of KRW 25,00,00.

(b) Details of the fraudulent act;

(1) Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of offering real estate in excess of his/her obligation to a certain person among creditors as collateral constitutes fraudulent act in relation to other creditors. However, considering that the debtor's act of making loans in a situation in which it is difficult to continue the business due to the financial difficulties is the best way to have the ability to repay debts, it is inevitable to provide certain creditors with new real estate as collateral and to notify certain creditors of the suspension of the supply of goods necessary for the business if it is not provided a security for the credit purchase loan obligation from the purchaser in a continuous transaction relationship, and if the debtor continues to conduct the business due to the provision of real estate as collateral to certain creditors and the supply of goods, etc., it is the best way to secure the ability to repay debts. In this case, it is deemed that the act of creating security interest of the debtor does not constitute fraudulent act.

(2) 갑 제18 내지 23, 24호증, 을가 제1 내지 7호증, 을라 제1, 2호증의 각 기재, 제1심 법원의 근로복지공단 평택지사장과 국민건강보험공단 안성지사장에 대한 각 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 보면, ① 소외 1 주식회사는 1999. 7. 19. 설립된 이래 자체 특허권을 바탕으로 메모리폰 베개와 같은 침장제품의 생산 및 판매업 등을 영위하여 온 사실, ② 소외 1 주식회사는 설립 이래 매출이 지속적으로 증가하여 2003년도에는 매출액 약 177억 원, 당기순이익 약 25억 원으로 정점을 기록하였고, 2004년도에는 매출액 약 110억 원, 당기순손실 약 9억 원, 2005년도에는 매출액 101억 원, 당기순이익 약 7억 원을 각 기록하였으며, 2005. 6. 무렵에는 산업기술 분야에서 기술 개발 실적이 우수하고 향후 맞춤베개시스템에 대한 마케팅을 통하여 새로운 시장을 창출할 것으로 기대된다는 사유로 산업자원부장관으로부터 산업기술혁신대상을 받기도 하였는데, 2006년도에는 상반기 매출액 약 26억 원, 당기순손실 약 19억 원을 기록하는 등 매출이 급감하고 당기순손실액이 증가하는 등 재정상태가 급격하게 악화된 사실, ③ 트위세이버의 재정상태가 급격하게 악화된 원인은, 이 사건 임야에 공장을 신축하기 위하여 약 40억 원을 투자하였으나 전시시설보호구역 해제가 가능하지 않게 되고 기타 각종 부동산 규제로 인하여 자금이 묶이게 되자, 차선책으로 안성시 서운면 양촌리에 공장을 신축하여 현대식 설비를 갖추는데 약 130억 원을 들이는 등 대규모 설비 투자로 인한 자금 압박을 받게 되고, 환율의 지속적 하락과 중국 기업의 저가 물량 공세 등 무역 환경이 변화된데다가 고급품 시장인 백화점과 대형 유통점 등의 판매망 구축에 많은 비용이 소요되었기 때문인 사실, ④ 소외 1 주식회사는 2006. 1. 무렵부터 고용보험료를, 2006. 5. 무렵부터는 건강보험료를 지급하지 못하였고, 원자재를 공급해 주는 거래처에 대한 물품대금의 지급도 지체하여 원자재 수급에 차질이 빚어지기 시작한 사실, ⑤ 소외 1 주식회사는 오랜 기간 동안 피고 1, 2로부터 원자재를 공급받아 왔는데, 미지급 외상물품대금으로, 피고 1에 대하여는 2006. 3. 무렵까지 153,481,939원의 채무를, 피고 2에 대하여는 2006. 2. 무렵까지 121,867,101원의 채무를 각 부담하게 된 사실, ⑥ 피고 1, 2가 소외 1 주식회사에게 조속한 시일 내에 물품대금을 변제하지 아니하면 계속해서 원자재를 공급할 수 없음을 통지하는 한편, 피고 2가 소외 1 주식회사의 공장부지를 가압류하기에 이르자, 이에 소외 2는 피고 1, 2로부터 계속 원자재를 공급받기 위하여 소외 1 주식회사의 공장부지용으로 매입하였던 이 사건 임야에 제1근저당권을 설정하여 주게 되었고, 나아가 2006. 7. 10. 소외 1 주식회사의 피고 3 주식회사에 대한 대출금 10억 원의 채무의 변제기가 도래하자, 변제기를 2007. 1. 5.로 유예받으면서 위 대출금 10억 원의 담보를 위하여 이 사건 임야에 관하여 피고 3 주식회사 앞으로 제2근저당권을 설정해 주면서 소외 1 주식회사의 자금난을 넘겨 생산 및 영업을 계속하려고 노력한 사실, ⑦ 소외 1 주식회사는, 중소기업은행, 하나은행 등 거래 은행이 2006. 7. 19. 이래 소외 1 주식회사의 대출금 이자 지급 연체를 사유로 금융거래를 중단하는 한편, 주거래 은행인 중소기업은행이 소외 1 주식회사의 매출 수금분이 입금되는 계좌의 인출을 제한하고, 위 거래 은행이나 거래 은행에 대한 대출금 채무를 신용보증하였던 원고 및 기술신용보증기금 등도 그 무렵 소외 1 주식회사의 공장부지를 가압류하기에 이르는 등 금융 거래가 봉쇄되어 긴급한 원자재 대금도 지급하기 어렵게 되고 정상적인 생산활동도 할 수 없게 되는 지경에 처하게 되자, 2006. 8. 12. 수원지방법원에 회생절차개시신청을 하였고, 2006. 9. 5. 10:00 같은 법원 2006회합4호로 회생절차개시결정 을 받아 영업활동을 계속하여 왔으며, 2007. 6. 14.에는 회생절차개시인가결정도 받은 사실, ⑧ 피고 1, 2는 제1근저당권을 설정한 이후 소외 1 주식회사의 생산 및 영업 지속을 위하여 원자재를 계속 공급하여 준 사실, ⑨ 한편 앞서 본 소외 2의 원고에 대한 구상금 연대보증채무까지 포함한 금융기관 등에 대한 총 채무 중 165억 원 이상이 소외 1 주식회사의 금융기관에 대한 채무의 보증채무인 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1 corporation established the first and second collateral security right in order to ensure that most of its obligations, such as joint and several debt guarantee obligations against the Plaintiff, are difficult to repay normally without rehabilitation, due to the relationship between Nonparty 1 corporation’s debt and the financial institution. Nonparty 2 continued to be supplied with the funds by Nonparty 1 corporation’s purchase of new raw materials for the purpose of securing the payment obligation against the number of transferred raw materials and continuously providing the necessary raw materials for its production and business activities at the same time from Defendant 3 corporation to prevent the situation in which the continuation of the company’s business becomes impossible. In addition, Nonparty 1 corporation’s establishment process and establishment of the first collateral security right can not be seen as having been provided with raw materials from Defendant 1 and 2, and it is inevitable for Nonparty 1 corporation to continue its production and business activities through the postponement of payment of financial debt by the commencement of rehabilitation procedure and authorized decision. In light of the rehabilitation procedure, Nonparty 2, who continued to obtain the funds from Nonparty 1 corporation’s representative director’s loan and its best debt repayment method.

(3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that Nonparty 2’s act of establishing the first and second root mortgage of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)