logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.08 2016가합554247
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s credit, bond management, debt collection, new loan business, etc., while serving as the deputy head at the claims team, as well as D, purchased the instant real estate from E, F-owned G, H, I, J respective land and G, and H ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”), and received a loan as collateral in order to prepare the purchase price, etc.

C and D loaned KRW 1.3 billion in its name from K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) on June 20, 2012, and borrowed KRW 1.0 billion in its name from L (C’s private village type). In order to secure each of the above loans, in relation to the instant real estate, ① K’s maximum debt amount of KRW 1.56 billion with respect to the instant maximum debt amount, ② the registration of creation of a mortgage on the first priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority over the obligor, ② the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant real estate, ② the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.3 billion with respect to the Plaintiff, and the establishment of a mortgage on the second priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority priority over the debtor L (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage on the instant second priority priority priority priority priority

C. D received additional loans from M organizations (hereinafter “M organizations”) as collateral, and received answer from M organizations (hereinafter “M organizations”) that additional loans of KRW 1.3 billion are possible in addition to KRW 1.3 billion necessary to repay the existing loans to K companies, subject to the establishment of the first-class collateral security right with respect to the instant real estate.

C and D conspired on July 5, 2013, without the Plaintiff’s permission, forged the power of attorney in the name of the Plaintiff to delegate the authority to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the second-class mortgage of this case, which was based on the termination of the right to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage, and delivered the power to the certified judicial scrivener of M organization, and had the said certified judicial scrivener cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the second-class mortgage of

C and D shall be registered in the name of the O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “O”) that they operate with respect to the instant real estate on July 5, 2013.

arrow