logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2016.04.26 2014나1769
약정금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 2009, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage-mortgage and the Defendant’s neighboring mortgage-backed land owned by the Z (hereinafter “instant land”), which was the representative director of the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), was completed on November 4, 2009 with respect to the land in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Of the instant land-based loan construction works (hereinafter “instant loan”) and the instant construction works, the Plaintiff: (a) around September 6, 2012; (b) around KRW 253,000,000 (50% of the construction price was determined to be paid in substitutes); and (c) from September 6, 2012 to October 30, 2012, the construction period of the instant land-based loan construction works (hereinafter “the instant construction works”); and (b) around September 19, 2012, the portion of the construction price, such as furniture and the external heat construction, etc., was determined to be paid in lots; and (d) from September 19, 2012 to September 15, 2012, each of them was subcontracted, respectively.

(hereinafter “each of the instant subcontracts.” Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a contract by lending the name of Y in the case of the said subcontract as of September 19, 2012.

After December 20, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of G Co., Ltd. (which appears to be the owner of the instant loan; hereinafter “G”), and accordingly, on January 10, 2013, the debtor at the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was changed to G due to the assumption of obligation.

On the other hand, C and G were actually operated both in-house directors H and the husband of the former in-house director AB, the husband of the former in-house director.

On January 7, 2013, the Defendant, a creditor of the Plaintiff, G, and G, entered into a sales contract with the content that part of the construction cost under each of the instant subcontract agreement shall be paid to the Plaintiff as a substitute for the instant loan Nos. 102, 104, and 102, 201 (hereinafter “each of the instant households”) among the instant loans, and the respective main contents are as follows:

“A” refers to G and “B”, and the following sales contract is included.

arrow