logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.27 2015가단220682
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant A”) entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on May 10, 2004. The Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agreement was entered into with the Industrial Bank of Korea as a collateral, and received a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea for corporate purchase funds.

B. From January 2002, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) supplied DOP, which is a raw material of Defendant EOCoCot, to Defendant C. DOP supplied by Defendant C is equivalent to KRW 162,95,540 in 202, KRW 174,668,230 in 203, KRW 179,573,90 in 2004, KRW 495,842,710 in 205, and around January 18, 2006, the amount of the claim against Defendant C for Defendant C reaches KRW 321,446,050 in 206.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged Defendants conspired to prepare a false tax invoice on the premise that there was no actual transaction, and filed a false tax invoice with the Industrial Bank of Korea for the loan of corporate purchase funds. The Industrial Bank of Korea, which did not know of such fact, received from the Industrial Bank of Korea, KRW 42 million on June 14, 2005, KRW 5 million on June 28, 2005, KRW 30 million on October 28, 2005, and KRW 40 million on November 29, 2005 from the Defendant’s account.

On June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligation to the Industrial Bank of Korea, and on behalf of the Defendant A, subrogated the amount of KRW 141,950,000 (=167,00,000 x 85%) equivalent to the guaranteed ratio of KRW 85% out of the above fraud amount (i.e., 167,00,000 x 85%). The Defendants’ act of deceiving the Industrial Bank of Korea constitutes a tort, and the Plaintiff suffered damages by subrogation to the Industrial Bank of Korea. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable

3. Defendant A and B had already rendered judgment on the argument prior to the merits, with respect to the instant corporate purchase loan, the Plaintiff had already made the said Defendants.

arrow