logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.16 2013가단343159
보증채무금
Text

1. Defendant Central Construction Co., Ltd. pays KRW 148,200,000 to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff A.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Central Construction Company

A. On October 7, 2005, the Central Construction Co., Ltd., which indicated the claim, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on October 7, 2005, and the Central Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., to provide collateral guarantee within the limit of KRW 148,200,00 for the obligations of loans of KRW 11.4 million against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant Central Construction Co., Ltd. is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition 1.

(b) Judgment to recommend confession;

2. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant A Regional Housing Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”)

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) (A) on October 7, 2005, the Plaintiff offered a loan of KRW 114,000,000 to B, who was a member of the Defendant Union. However, C, the president of the Defendant Union, including the above loan, around that time, agreed that C, a president of the Defendant Union, who was the head of the Defendant Union, will provide a limited collateral guarantee for KRW 137,40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant collateral guarantee agreement”).

(B) (B) The instant collateral guarantee agreement against the Plaintiff of the Defendant Union is merely an act of collective ownership, not an act of disposal of collective ownership, and can be effective without the resolution of the general meeting of the Defendant Union, which was the president of the Defendant Union. Therefore, the Defendant Union is jointly and severally liable with the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant collateral guarantee agreement. (c) The Defendant Union did not have any substance around October 2005, and there was no conclusion of the instant collateral guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff, and the parties who concluded the instant collateral guarantee agreement are individuals C, not the Defendant Union.

(B) Even if there was an entity A, a regional housing association, at the time of the instant neighboring guarantee agreement, the instant case.

arrow