beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, E, and F shall be jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, E, and F
A. Defendant B shall not exceed 116,424,533 won within the limit of 120,900,000 won.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendants are the parties. 1) The Defendants are Co., Ltd. F (former trade name: G Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “F”) manufacturing and selling tools for visiting a building.
2) On December 29, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy by the Seoul Central District Court on July 1, 2013 (201Hamhap88), as follows: (a) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) was a company that took over F and the claims against the Defendants from Company I (hereinafter referred to as “I”); and (b) the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court on July 1, 2013 (2013Hamhap88);
B. F’s establishment of the I’s collective security right on F’s factories, etc. 1) was “K” at the time when F first set up the collective security right on December 15, 2000, but was merged into I on November 1, 2001. Between B and B, F’s factory building, land, etc. (hereinafter “instant joint security real estate, etc.”) located in YJ on December 15, 2000.
As to the debtor F, the debtor F entered into a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of KRW 900,000,000. On the same day, F concluded a mortgage contract with the first B on July 31, 2002, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 650,000,000,000 with respect to the joint collateral of this case, and thereafter, F concluded a mortgage contract with the first on April 7, 2006, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,30,000,000 on February 7, 2005, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,250,000,000 on November 22, 2005, and the third,00,000,000 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 3,00,0000,000 on April 7, 206.
3) As above, the mortgage agreement entered into with F is a comprehensive collateral agreement with which F, a debtor, guarantees all obligations arising from credit transactions, etc. that are currently and future against I. C. The Defendants had a claim for the purchase of goods against F through transactions, such as supply of materials, but F, around 207.