Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

November 26, 2009

Jeonju District Court Decision 2004Kadan16155 Decided July 16, 2008

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

A. The primary purport of the claim

On March 19, 2001, the claim assignment contract between the defendant and the non-party on the claim indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 was revoked, and the defendant transferred the claim for dividend payment indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 to the non-party, and notified that he transferred the claim to the non-party to Korea (the public official in charge of military support deposit) (the court of first instance dismissed the claim for the primary claim, but was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court because the plaintiff did not appeal).

B. Preliminary purport of claim

The defendant shall notify the non-party that he transferred his claim for dividend payment indicated in the attached list No. 2 to the non-party, and that he transferred the above claim to the Republic of Korea (a public official in charge of military bankruptcy support).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff among the part concerning the preliminary claim of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The same shall apply to the preliminary claim.

B. Defendant

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In order to secure the Defendant’s loan obligation amounting to KRW 80 million, the Nonparty transferred the claim for the payment of the construction cost, etc. (the amount of the claim KRW 493.1 million, hereinafter “the instant claim”). Since then the Defendant received the full payment of the claim against the Nonparty from Dongjin Co., Ltd., and subsequently the security right to the instant claim was extinguished (the Defendant acquired the right only within the limit of KRW 80 million, which is its own claim amount, among the instant claim, within the limit of KRW 80 million, since the Defendant acquired the right to transfer the instant claim by subrogation of the Nonparty’s obligee, and the Plaintiff obtained the claim for the payment of dividends based on the instant claim, the Defendant is obligated to transfer the said claim for the payment of dividends, which was obtained without legal grounds, to the Nonparty.

B. Determination

(i)Recognitions

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8 (including additional numbers):

㈎ 소외인은 2000. 5. 9. 진우산업에게서 익산시 성당면 대선리 (지번 생략) 소재 공장 및 전북 김제 소재 공장 신축공사를 도급받았다.

㈏ 소외인은 위 공사를 진행하면서 진우산업이 지급하여야 할 설계비 2,020만 원, 마을회관 건립비 1,250만 원을 진우산업을 대신하여 지급하였음에도, 진우산업이 위 금액은 물론 위 공사에 대한 계약금 1억 원 및 기계운반대금 등으로 소외인로부터 차용한 6,040만 원 상당의 약속어음금( 소외인이 위 약속어음을 결제하였다)을 지급하지 않자, 소외인은 2000. 10. 10.경 위 공장 신축공사를 중단하였다.

㈐ 소외인은 2001. 3. 19.경 피고에게서 8,000만 원을 차용하면서 피고에게 자신이 진우산업에 대하여 가지는 이 사건 채권(당시 소외인은 채권액이 6억 3,000만 원이라고 주장하였다)을 양도(이하 ‘이 사건 양도계약’이라 한다)하였고, 같은 해 4. 2 이를 확정일자부 내용증명우편으로 진우산업에게 통지하였으며, 그 무렵 진우산업에게 위 통지서가 도달되었다.

㈑ 이후 피고는 2001. 8. 1.경 진우산업을 상대로 6억 3,000만 원의 양수금 청구소송을 제기하여( 대구지방법원 2001가합13130호 및 대구고등법원 2003나6362호 ), 진우산업은 소외인에 대하여 부담하는 4억 9,310만 원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 이 사건 채권의 양수인인 피고에게 지급하라는 일부승소확정판결을 선고받았다.

㈒ 피고는 진우산업에 대한 확정판결에 기한 채권을 집행채권으로 하여, 진우산업 소유의 익산공장 부지 및 건물에 대한 전주지방법원 군산지원 2003타경15554, 15264, 2004타경9761호 부동산 임의경매사건에서 144,794,446원을 배당받는 것으로 배당표가 작성되었고, 같은 법원 2004타기565호 배당절차에서 218,190,834원을 배당받는 것으로 배당표가 작성되었으나, 원고를 비롯한 소외인의 채권자들의 처분금지가처분 등으로 인하여 위 배당금이 공탁된 상태이다.

㈓ 한편, 원고는 소외인과 피고 사이의 이 사건 양도계약 이전인 2001. 3. 7.경 소외인에게서 위 공장 신축공사 시공권을 양수받았다가, 이후 2001. 4. 19.경 소외인과 피고 사이의 이 사건 양도계약 등을 이유로 시공권 양수계약을 해제하고, 그동안 소외인에게 지급한 돈의 반환을 구하는 소송( 부산지방법원 동부지원 2002가단8980호 및 부산고등법원 2002나14792호 )을 제기하여 소외인은 원고에게 6,000만 원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급하라는 승소확정판결을 선고받았다.

Shed Judgment

In light of the above facts, the non-party notified the defendant of the transfer of the claim of this case to the Jinjin Industry after the transfer of the claim of this case, and the defendant received a final decision in favor of the defendant by filing a lawsuit against Jinjin Industry. According to the above facts, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1 and 2, the plaintiff participated in the transfer contract of this case between the defendant and the non-party for the transfer of the claim of this case against Jinjin Industry, and the plaintiff asserted that the transfer contract of this case between the defendant and the non-party is invalid because it constitutes double transfer of the claim of this case. Considering these circumstances, the defendant is entitled to legally acquire the claim of this case and is in the status of the creditor of the claim of this case unless there are special circumstances (the transfer contract of this case was made in order to guarantee the defendant's loan and losses likely to occur in the future, even if the defendant did not perform the obligation to settle the claim of this case on April 200, it does not affect the defendant's obligation to pay the non-party.

Therefore, it is apparent that the Defendant’s status as a creditor of the instant claim against the Jin-related industry cannot be deemed as a benefit without any legal ground to acquire the claim for dividend payment in the auction procedure on real estate owned by the Jin-related Industry. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without further examination.

Even if the transfer contract of this case was made as an object of collateral and only a kind of contract to establish a right of pledge, it is lawful and effective as a security right contract for a security exceeding the amount of secured debt, and a pledgee holds a pledge right for the entire security until he has been paid the entire amount of his claim (Indivisibility of a pledge). Thus, the part exceeding 80 million won out of the transfer contract of this case is not null and void merely because the claim of this case, which is a security, exceeds the defendant's loan claim against the non-party, and the plaintiff's claim for rescission of a contract of this case is without merit. In addition, as seen earlier, the non-party at the time of the transfer contract of this case, was liable for the loan amounting to KRW 80 million against the defendant, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the above loan obligation was extinguished only with the statement of Eul evidence No. 6. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer contract of this case lost its validity due to the extinguishment of the secured obligation is without

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-won (Presiding Judge)