Scope of secured obligation of the right of pledge

It is reasonable to deem that at the time of the conclusion of a pledge agreement, AA Bank andCC had agreed to the scope of secured liabilities only for obligations under the First and Second Contracts and obligations incidental thereto, and for obligations to be incurred in the future.

2015 Gohap75049 Demurrer against distribution

AA Bank’s bankruptcy BB, a bankrupt bank

Republic of Korea 4

August 10, 2016

August 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared on September 24, 2015 by the above court, the dividends of KRW 1,398,724,718 against the Republic of Korea, the dividends of KRW 51,973,620 against the defendant Eul-si, the dividends of KRW 650,168,484 against the defendant Eul-si, the dividends of KRW 10,450,897, the dividends of KRW 9,709,79,796 against the defendant Eul-si, and the dividends of KRW 3,280,00,000 against the plaintiff and KRW 5,401,027,515 against the defendant Eul-si, shall be corrected respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2013, AA Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AA Bank") entered into an agreement on the acquisition of bonds with the preemptive right of KRW 7 billion on August 2, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the first agreement"), and the comprehensive passbook loan agreement of KRW 4.3 billion on December 6, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the second agreement of this case").

B. On December 6, 2010, AA Bank entered into a pledge agreement withCC (hereinafter referred to as “instant pledge agreement”) with each other (hereinafter referred to as “instant pledge agreement”) and the main terms of the agreement are as follows.

Article 1 (Establishment of Pledges) (1) B (State referring to ACC; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall establish a pledge to secure the following secured obligation, and deliver to A (hereinafter the same shall apply) the following investment certificates:

1. Security liabilities:

(1) Obligations to repay the principal and interest of loan to Gap under the Credit Transaction Agreement concluded by Eul with Eul on December 6, 2010, and obligations to Eul present and future obligations to Eul

(2) The repayment obligation of the principal and interest of bonds to be borne by Eul on August 2, 2010 under the second unguaranteed private placement of bonds with warrants signed by Eul with Gap on August 2, 2010, and the obligation to be borne by Eul at present and in the future against Eul.

2. Maximum debt amount: 5,590,000 won; and

3. Subject matter of pledge:

(1) The rights indicated in the investment certificate issued by the HH first private equity fund to the HH first private equity fund and all rights incidental thereto.

(2) Even though no separate declaration of intention or any other measure is taken on the subject matter of the pledge right, the pledge right under this contract shall become effective naturally in respect of money, any other benefit and right to be received.

C. On December 6, 2010, HH subparagraph 1: (a) issued a certificate of investment on the subject-matter of pledge (hereinafter “instant certificate of investment”) to A Bank on December 20, 2010 after having declared its consent to the instant pledge agreement; and (b) issued it to A Bank.

D. On May 25, 2011, AA Bank entered into a bonds acquisition agreement withCC and 15 billion won with preemptive rights (hereinafter referred to as “instant third contract”).

E.CC, upon filing an application for rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohapx, commenced rehabilitation procedures on January 18, 2013. On July 23, 2013, the rehabilitation plan was approved on July 23, 2013. In the rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff, a bankruptcy trustee of AA bank, recognized rehabilitation claims of KRW 4,00,000 under the instant contract and rehabilitation claims of KRW 10,614,483,386 under the instant contract 3 as rehabilitation security rights. According to the finalized rehabilitation plan, KRW 3,280,000,000 among rehabilitation security rights of KRW 4,00,000, and KRW 8,703,876,377, out of the rehabilitation security rights of KRW 10,614,483,386, respectively, shall be repaid in cash.

F. A HH subparagraph 1 private equity fund entered into a liquidation procedure around February 2015, and was converted to KRW 5,39,79,798,916 in the course of distributing residual property (hereinafter “instant shares distribution claim”). The Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order regarding the instant shares distribution claim by designating the original copy of the rehabilitation secured creditor list with executory power in the case No. 2012, Seoul Central District Court 2012, as executive title. The Defendants seized each of the instant shares distribution claims againstCC as its respective claims.

G. A HH subparagraph 1 private equity fund deposited KRW 5,39,79,798,916 with the Kuyang branch court of the District Court in 2015 for concurrent seizure of the instant claim. In the instant case of dividends on the said deposit (Article 2015(x)), the court deemed that the secured obligation under the instant pledge agreement constituted only the subject of cash reimbursement among the rehabilitation security rights under the instant pledge agreement, and that the Plaintiff was first priority, and the Defendants were jointly and severally apportioned KRW 2,121,027,515 as indicated below [the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 5,40,000,000 from the amount calculated by adding the actual dividends to KRW 3,280,00,000,000,000 + KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 + KRW 30,515,005,00,000]

Amount of dividends of tax authorities

Sung Dong-dong District Court Decision 746,831,676 Plaintiff Yangyang 651,893,042

D. D. 51,973,620 won

EE City 650,168,484 won

DD. FF 10,450,897 won

D. GG Gu 9,709,796 won

Total 2,121,027,515

H. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the said distribution case, and expressed an objection to the distribution against the Defendants as to the entire amount of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the pledge agreement of this case is a comprehensive pledge agreement to secure all the obligations thatCC owes to AA bank in the future, the secured obligation includes not only the obligations arising out of the rehabilitation security right under the contract of this case but also the obligations arising out of the rehabilitation security right under the contract of this case under the third contract of this case. Nevertheless, the dividends court deemed that the secured obligation under the pledge agreement of this case is limited to the obligations arising out of the rehabilitation security right under the contract of this case under the contract of this case. It is unlawful to distribute the Defendants the dividends of KRW 2,121,027,515 to the Defendants out of the rehabilitation security right under the contract of this case under the contract of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants’ dividends of KRW 2,121,027,51

3. Determination

However, in light of the above facts, while entering into a pledge agreement with AA bank, it appears that "the obligation to repay the principal and interest of the bonds under the contract of this case and the obligation to be borne in the future" and "CC's obligation to repay the principal and interest of the loan under the contract of this case and the obligation to be borne in the future" as the secured obligation as stated above. However, in full view of the whole arguments mentioned above, it is not stated that "the title of the document concluding the pledge agreement of this case is "the pledge agreement" and "the comprehensive collateral obligation" is not stated in the terms of "the existing and future obligation", and it appears that the terms of "the secured obligation of this case were not stated in the pledge agreement of this case 3 billion won" and "the secured obligation of this case is not stated in the secured obligation of this case" and "the secured obligation of this case is not stated separately as the secured obligation of 3 billion won under the contract of this case. It appears that the third contract of this case was concluded within the period of 6 months after the conclusion of the pledge agreement of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.