logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.27 2014가합45374
채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의
Text

1. The final claim inspection judgment of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014 dated August 6, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "final claim inspection judgment") shall be amended as follows:

Plaintiff .

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the financial business such as credit and credit collection. The Plaintiff changed the trade name to C on August 27, 2013, and the trade name was changed to A as of April 1, 2015.

(2) E is an employee of the debtor company who has been in charge of the equipment distribution and management business from January 1, 2008 to December 201, 201, whose name has been changed to the head of the department due to the personnel reorganization of the debtor company and transferred to the head of the department on January 1, 2012, and has been in charge of the business support and customer management until the mid of April 2012.

3) Limited Company F (hereinafter “F”)

(4) H Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as “H”) and I Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as “I”) are companies established for the purpose of the wholesale and retail trade business of telecommunications equipment and the acquisition and management business of sales claims. G is the only director of F.

As described in paragraph (1), E and G are special purpose corporations established in collusion for the purpose of obtaining loans from financial institutions, such as the Plaintiff (SPC hereinafter referred to as “SPC in the case of the common name of the above two corporations).

B. E and F lending fraud 1) The debtor company did not have any sales claim against the F debtor company because it did not receive the mobile phone from F, and therefore, F could not obtain a loan from the financial institution directly or through SPC as security. (2) However, E and G, etc., in order to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff by pretending that the debt subsidiary normally received the mobile phone, etc. from F as if they were supplied from F, in order to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff as security by pretending that they were normally supplied with the mobile phone, etc., E forges sales claim certificates, etc. by misappropriation the name of the representative director of the debtor

arrow