beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 16, 2012, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) was declared bankrupt on the Busan District Court 2012Hahap4, and the bankruptcy procedure is currently in progress. The Plaintiff was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee of A.
B. D Limited Liability Company (SPC) established by A (hereinafter “D”) has obtained loans from A six times from January 22, 2005 to May 10, 2010, and the loans amounted to KRW 7,939,289,807.
C. Upon the recommendation of the representative F of the E company in charge of the accounting affairs of D, Defendant B was listed respectively as the representative director or director of D from May 12, 2005 to March 5, 2013, Defendant C was listed as D director from November 29, 2005 to January 10, 201, and 50% of the total issued stocks of D were listed in the name of Defendant B, and the remainder of 50% was listed in the register of shareholders in the name of Defendant C.
Defendant B received KRW 169,816,913 from June 2005 to May 201, 201, and Defendant C received KRW 67,500,000 from December 2005 to January 201, 201 as wages, etc. D.
(hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant money”) D in total.
According to the audit report prepared on March 24, 2010 by the G Certified Public Accountants audit team, D, an external auditor, D, on December 31, 2009, the total assets amounting to KRW 19,619,74,720 as of December 31, 2009, and the total assets amounting to KRW 42,110,874,349.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against D by judgment on the ground of this safety resistance, the Plaintiff’s subrogation against D as the preserved right, and the Defendants’ claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or claim for damages against the Defendants on behalf of D. The Defendants cannot claim the return of D’s loan holding 100% equity interest with the credit grant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s claim for this case’s loan is unlawful because there is no preserved claim against D due to lack of preserved claim against A.
D is a special purpose corporation established by A.