logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.08.09 2017가합42268
채무부존재확인
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of imported livestock products and distribution business of livestock products, and the defendant is the main business of lending funds.

It is a financial institution as its business.

B. 1) Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”)

(1) On January 15, 2016, when entering into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant by setting the credit limit amount of KRW 700 million and interest rate of KRW 8.9%, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant on the same day, and on the same day, entered into a transfer contract with the Defendant, setting the maximum debt amount of livestock products as KRW 910 million and providing them as collateral in a future form for settlement of accounts, and providing them as collateral (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant first agreement” in total with the said credit transaction agreement and security agreement.

(2) On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) entered into a credit transaction agreement and security transfer agreement with the Defendant with the same content as the instant first agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Second Agreement”). According to the First and Second Agreements of this case, the Plaintiffs may obtain individual loans by offering livestock products as security within the limit of each credit limit amount, and the Plaintiffs decided to repay the total amount of loans at the expiration of the lending period.

C. As of the date stated in the “loan Implementation Date” column in the attached Table 1, Plaintiff A purchased each of the relevant livestock products listed in the “livestock products” column in the same Table from C, D, and E (the name of each company omitted the stock company) as indicated in the same Table, and requested the Defendant to execute the loan based on the instant arrangement. Plaintiff B is the “F” as stated in the “Loan Implementation Date” column in the attached Table 2 as stated in the attached Table 2, and “the instant intermediary” as stated in the “F” on each date.

arrow