logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2016가합517521
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2015, B decided to pay in cash the borrowed amount of KRW 312,500,000 to the Plaintiff until May 30, 2015, and, if the repayment of the borrowed amount is not performed, B prepared a notarial deed stating that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is performed immediately (No. 209 of the Han River Certificate 2015).

B. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a creditor of B, received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) regarding “the amount until the requested amount out of the shares to be paid by B and the claim amount out of the bonds to be paid by the Defendant pursuant to a business transfer or takeover contract for Sym Farming Livestock Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sym Farming Co., Ltd.”) between B and the Defendant as KRW 312,50,000 on the basis of the original copy of the notarial deed as set forth in the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch 2016TT 50,000,000.” The above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on February 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the collection obligee B the amount of the share certificates and the claim amount of the transfer price of the business between B and the defendant under the business transfer and takeover agreement between B and the defendant, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the parties to the contract for the transfer and takeover of the business of the Smaga Livestock did not exist in the beginning with the Defendant and the Smaga Livestock; and (b) even if the claims owned by the Plaintiff were recognized as claims for Smaga Livestock, the Defendant had already been on August 13, 2015, prior to the delivery of the instant seizure and collection order to the Defendant.

arrow