logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.22 2014가합4120
집행판결
Text

1. As to the case of Korea Commercial Arbitration No. 1211-0242 between the Plaintiff (Consolidated Defendant) and the Defendant (Consolidated Plaintiff)

Reasons

Basic Facts

On January 20, 2010, the Defendant, including the conclusion of a construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to contract for the installation of food waste disposal facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”) at KRW 21,010,000 for the cost of construction (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). Article 16 of the instant construction contract provides that “A dispute arising between the parties to the instant contract during the performance of the contract shall be resolved through consultation. If the agreement is not reached within 30 days from the date of the occurrence of the dispute, the dispute shall be resolved through arbitration by the arbitral institution under the Arbitration Act, and the award shall be final and binding upon the parties.”

Around March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to receive KRW 22,00,000,000 for the purpose of securing the construction cost of the instant construction contract with a new renewableenna Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On the same day, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company on the assumption of obligations with respect to the acquisition of obligations owed by the Plaintiff to the Nonparty Company.

On March 7, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained additional loans from Nonparty Company KRW 4,000,000,000 from Nonparty Company, and entered into a “the first modified agreement on loan agreement”. On the same day, the Defendant entered into the first modified agreement on the assumption of obligations between the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company with respect to the assumption of obligations owed by the Plaintiff to Nonparty Company.

On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff again borrowed KRW 7,00,000,000 from the non-party company, and entered into a second amendment agreement to the loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). Article 31 of the said agreement where the Plaintiff did not pay the amount to be paid pursuant to the loan agreement on the relevant payment date, etc., the non-party company and the Defendant pursuant to the said loan agreement.

arrow