beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) from June 30, 2011 to August 9, 2011, as well as KRW 9,900,000.
Reasons
1. The facts in the separate sheet of facts supporting the claim may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in the statement in Gap evidence 1 to 3 by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings;
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is obligated to pay the above money jointly with Defendant Company within the limit of KRW 9,900,000,000 among the loan principal, and the rate of KRW 11% per annum from June 30, 201 to August 9, 201, and the rate of KRW 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the above money within the limit of KRW 14,30,00,000,00 with Defendant Company.
3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. Determination as to the assertion that the loan agreement in this case is null and void because it constitutes a false conspiracy, false representation, or an act of acting in breach of trust (1) The loan agreement and joint and several guarantee agreement in this case between A and the Defendants are concluded in the form of a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Defendant, a borrower, while knowing that the loan was actually executed for the benefit of D in fact, E, a general executive director in charge of credit management, etc., of D and A, and entered into
Therefore, the loan agreement of this case and the joint and several guarantee agreement of this case are null and void as a false agreement.
In addition, upon entering into a loan agreement, the employee of A performed a loan with the knowledge that the loan is to be used by the Defendant Company, not the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company was also aware of this fact, and therefore Article 107(1) of the Civil Act is applied mutatis mutandis to the act of A employee.
(2) We examine the judgment, and since the right to manage and dispose of the bankrupt estate belongs to the bankruptcy trustee, the bankruptcy trustee has the same status as the general successor of the bankrupt.