logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가단126218
손해배상(기)
Text

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

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

Reasons

1. On June 1, 2011, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) whose representative director was Defendant B, entered into a contract for a loan for purchase with a new bank, and Defendant B entered into a joint and several guarantee contract for the said loan.

On May 30, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A on the said contract (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”).

As the representative of the purchasing company D, Defendant C received from the new bank a total of KRW 137,500,000 on June 7, 2011 and KRW 137,500,000 on June 8, 2011 (hereinafter “instant loans”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that the defendant Eul, in collusion with the defendant Eul, issued a false tax invoice under the presumption that there was no transaction between the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul, or received the loan of this case by deceiving the new bank by pretending as if there was an application for the loan of purchase fund and a request for collection within the period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the tax invoice. The defendant Gap failed to pay it, and the plaintiff paid 123,750,000 won which is 90% of the loan of this case by subrogation according to the rate of guarantee. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay the above subrogated amount, etc. to each plaintiff for compensation for tort.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendants received the instant loan by deceiving a new bank by issuing a false tax invoice or by pretending to be a transaction within 30 days from the date of issuance of the tax invoice, solely on the basis of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), which is the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, or each of the response to an order to submit financial transaction information.

arrow