logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2019.05.31 2018나23224
투자 원금 및 확정수익금 지급 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: (a) No. 1 of the first instance judgment No. 5 of the first instance court’s 4-5 of the first instance court’s 4-5 of the first instance court’s 11-5 of the “Evidence No. 5 of the first instance court’s 450 million won guarantee of the initial loan amount,” and (b) the Plaintiff added “No. 5 of the first instance court’s 5 with the purport that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff is a joint and several surety obligation when applying for provisional attachment against B of the claim against B; and (c) the Defendant added “additional Judgment No. 2. 2 of the first instance court

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion asserts that this court has extinguished the debt of this case against the plaintiff B in this court as follows.

1) On May 2018, the Plaintiff is a corporation J and its representative director K (hereinafter “K, etc.”) awarded a successful bid for the instant hotel business site in the process of public sale.

A) The agreement between the agent L and L that “the Plaintiff will receive KRW 2.3 billion in the event that the instant hotel business site is sold from K, etc. instead of transferring the Plaintiff’s right to manage the Plaintiff’s F to K, etc., or will receive the right to benefit of KRW 3 billion in the event that the instant hotel business is in progress” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

2) In doing so, L’s non-existence declaration, such as a loan, etc., stating that “the Plaintiff promises F to have no right, such as a loan, etc., with respect to the loan, etc.” (hereinafter “instant declaration”).

2) The Plaintiff, as seen above, exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to the Plaintiff of F as stipulated in the instant investment agreement by preparing and delivering the instant undertaking.

3) Therefore, since F’s principal obligation, which is the principal obligation, was exempted and extinguished, the instant obligation against B, which is the guaranteed obligation, was extinguished according to its subsidiary nature. 4) Even if the instant obligation against B, the instant obligation against the Plaintiff is asserted by the Plaintiff.

arrow