logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.04 2014가합517961
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from April 18, 2014 to December 4, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming indemnity against the joint and several surety B, etc., which jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation for indemnity of the Samsan Products Co., Ltd.

On February 6, 2007, the Plaintiff jointly and severally received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff regarding KRW 547,853,199 and delay damages for KRW 138,447,72 from the Plaintiff. The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(서울중앙지방법원 2006가단21517). 주식회사 케이스틸(아래에서는 ‘케이스틸’이라 한다)에서 근무하는 B은 2007. 2. 16. 피고에게 액면금 1억 5,000만의 약속어음을 발행하고, 집행력 있는 약속어음 공정증서 정본(공증인가 법무법인 신세기 증서 2007년 제145호)을 작성하여 건넸다.

On February 28, 2007, the Defendant received an order for the attachment and assignment of claims against B with respect to benefit claims against ethyls based on the notarial deed of a promissory note.

(Seoul Eastern District Court 2007TTTT1312). The Defendant received a total of KRW 150 million out of B’s benefits from March 26, 2007 to January 25, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1-9, Eul 1-3, fact-finding results to the head of Gangdong-gu, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances, B, in collusion with the Defendant, appears to have issued the Promissory Notes in order to avoid the collection of claims or compulsory execution by the creditors of B, without the intent of having the Defendant acquire rights in the Promissory Notes.

The issuance of promissory notes is invalid because they constitute false declaration of agreement.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received attachment and assignment order on the claim in B with respect to the payment claim in accordance with the execution document drawn up on the basis of invalid promissory notes, and acquired the benefit equivalent to the same amount without any legal ground by collecting the full amount of the claim KRW 150 million.

① From the late 1980s, the Defendant engaged in monetary transactions with B and around 1991.5.

arrow