logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.10 2017가단5062033
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C, as the representative operating a private business chain, concluded a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant for “the ordinary loan for business operation” as follows.

(1) Credit transaction agreement subject as of January 28, 2010: 27 million won from the date of expiration of the credit: January 28, 2010: The date of expiration of the credit transaction agreement as of January 28, 201:

On January 28, 2013, C assumed office as the representative director of the Plaintiff, a newly incorporated corporation, submitted to the Defendant an application for debt acquisition with respect to C’s obligation under each credit transaction agreement of this case to the Defendant. Accordingly, on the same day, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff and C on debt acquisition, such as the attached list, with which the Plaintiff would accept the said obligation.

C. Meanwhile, the credit transaction agreement as of January 28, 2010 (the date of the final repayment) was extended every year, and the last credit transaction agreement was changed on January 27, 2017. The credit transaction agreement as of January 30, 2012 was also extended every year, and the last credit transaction agreement was changed on January 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the agreement on the assumption of obligation, such as the attached list of the judgment, derived from C’s intent in breach of trust, and thus, the Defendant knew or could have known of such intent, and thus null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act. Since approval or resolution by the board of directors was necessary, the Defendant knew or could have known of the fact that there was no approval or resolution by the board of directors, and thus, sought confirmation of the non-existence

arrow