logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.01.31 2015다254453
회생채권조사확정재판에대한이의
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the instant assumption agreement constitutes an evasion of the law of prohibition of debt guarantee against an affiliated company prohibited under Article 15 and Article 10-2(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Amended by Act No. 14813, Apr. 18, 2017); and Article 21-4(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28197, Jul. 17, 2017); however, it constitutes an evasion of the law of prohibition of debt guarantee against an affiliated company prohibited under Article 21-4(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the provisions of each of the above statutes, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on effective regulations, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it does not seem that the assumption of an obligation of this case is contrary to the principle of good faith or null and void as an anti-social

Therefore, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the definition and equity, the principle of good faith, and the validity of a legal act contrary to social order, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that Article 101(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act does not apply in determining whether the debt acquisition agreement in this case is an act subject to denial under Article 100(1)4 of the same Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on gratuitous denial, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow