logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.12.14 2017가단1235
배당이의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff Company was divided into the banking business sector, and Nonparty C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) was established.

B. On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) at the time of maturity on April 27, 2012, and at the fluctuation rate pursuant to the Interest AF Credit Transaction Terms and Conditions. On April 201, 201, the Defendant concluded a credit guarantee agreement with the Nonparty Company, setting the amount of the said loan as KRW 180 million as the guaranteed amount (90% as the guaranteed amount).

C. On June 10, 201, the Plaintiff set KRW 65,000,00 to Nonparty Company as the due date for reimbursement on May 27, 2012, and granted each loan upon setting KRW 764,00,000 on September 15, 201 as the due date for reimbursement on September 2, 2021.

On August 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the non-party company at KRW 649,400,000 of the guaranteed amount (85% of the guaranteed amount) as the management institution of farmers and fishermen credit guarantee funds.

On June 10, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party company on the scope of secured debt (hereinafter “debtor’s obligation”) with the non-party company on June 10, 201, setting the scope of secured debt as the comprehensive collateral obligation, which is the “debtor’s obligation by means of a deed loan, etc. currently and future, to the obligee,” and entered into a contract on September 15, 201 with the non-party company on September 15, 201, setting the scope of secured debt between the non-party company and the non-party company as the limited collateral obligation, which is the “debtor’s obligation at present and future due to the transaction of evidence,”

E. As to each of the instant real estates, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 78,00,000 on June 10, 2016, based on each of the instant mortgages (hereinafter “the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage”). On September 15, 201, the Plaintiff is “the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the maximum debt amount of KRW 838,00,000).”

arrow