Law Firm Shopping Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Yu Won-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Democratic and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 26, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap33025 Decided October 26, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from May 15, 2012 to the day of full payment.

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

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Judgment on the main claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) 원고는 2010. 8. 26. 주식회사 대자연네트웍스(이하 ‘대자연네트웍스’라 한다)로부터 서울 강서구 (주소 생략) 지상 건물(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다) 중 지하 1층 1,077.4㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 상가’라 한다)를 임대차기간 2010. 9. 13.부터 2015. 9. 13.까지, 보증금 1,000,000,000원, 차임 월 10,000,000원으로 정하여 임차하였다(이하 원고와 피고 사이의 위 임대차계약을 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라 한다). 원고는 그 무렵 대자연네트웍스에 위 임대차보증금 1,000,000,000원을 지급하였다.

(2) 원고와 대자연네트웍스는 2010. 11. 23. 원고의 대자연네트웍스에 대한 위 임대차보증금반환채권을 담보하기 위하여 피고에 대한 대자연네트웍스 명의의 1,000,000,000원의 예금채권(예금종류 : 자유로 회전예금, 예금주 : 대자연네트웍스, 증서번호 : (증서번호 생략), 이하 ‘이 사건 예금채권’이라 한다)에 대하여 원고를 질권자, 대자연네트웍스를 채무자 겸 질권설정자, 피고를 제3채무자로 하는 질권설정계약(이하 ‘이 사건 질권설정계약’이라 한다)을 체결하였다.

(3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a written consent of pledge with a fixed date from the Defendant on the same day. The said written consent of pledge contains the following contents:

1. Prohibition of termination of a pledge and termination of the said deposit without a written consent of the pledgee;

2. Prohibition of any restriction on other rights and prohibition of offset, etc. on the head of the above pledge.

(4) 원고는 이 사건 임대차계약 후 이 사건 상가에서 롯데슈퍼를 운영하다가 영업 부진으로 2011. 12. 4. 운영을 중단하고, 위 상가를 대자연네트윅스에 인도하였다. 이후 원고는 2012. 2. 28.경 대자연네트웍스에 이 사건 임대차계약의 해지를 통보하면서 임대차보증금 반환과 손해배상을 청구하겠다는 내용의 서면을 발송하였다. 대자연네트웍스는 2012. 3. 5.경 원고에게 이 사건 임대차계약이 해지되었음을 전제로 임대차보증금은 2012. 4.경 반환할 예정이며, 원고의 손해배상청구는 부당하다는 내용의 답신을 하였다.

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

위 인정사실에 의하면, 이 사건 임대차계약은 늦어도 원고와 대자연네트웍스 사이에 위 임대차계약을 해지한다는 의사의 합치가 이루어졌음이 서면으로 나타난 2012. 3. 5.경 적법하게 해지되어 종료되었다. 따라서 특별한 사정이 없는 한 민법 제353조 제1 , 2항 에 의하여 제3채무자인 피고는 질권자인 원고에게 이 사건 예금 1,000,000,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

C. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on termination of the pledge agreement

(A) Defendant’s assertion

On December 16, 2010, the Defendant received notice from the Plaintiff that the instant pledge was rescinded, and paid the instant deposit to the Daessks. Since the instant pledge was lawfully rescinded on December 16, 2010, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the instant deposit to the Plaintiff.

(B) Determination

먼저 원고와 대자연네트윅스 사이에 이 사건 질권설정계약이 해지(이하에서는 을 제8호증의 질권해제통지서 자체나 그 질권해제통지서의 문면을 지칭하는 경우를 제외하고는 ‘해지’로 통일하여 기재한다)되었는지를 본다. 을 제8호증(질권해제통지서사본)의 기재에 의하면, 피고 역삼역지점에 2010. 12. 16. 팩시밀리로 전송된 질권해제통지서에 ‘대자연네트웍스와 체결한 이 사건 임대차계약과 관련하여 계약금에 대해 질권 설정한 이 사건 예금에 대하여 질권설정이 해제되었기에 통지합니다’라는 기재 아래 질권자인 원고의 대표이사 날인이 되어 있었던 사실은 인정된다.

However, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence Nos. 8 and 12’s overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged: ① The notice of cancellation of the pledge sent by facsimile at Defendant C Station was transcribed only from facsimile transmission date and facsimile number on December 16, 2010, and the other party to the notice of cancellation and the date of notification of cancellation remains in blank. ② The notice of cancellation of the pledge did not contain any other indication that the Plaintiff directly sent the receiver to the Defendant. ③ On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff sent the copy of the notice of cancellation of the pledge as the facsimile number.

In light of the degree of entry in the text of the notice of cancellation of the pledge right as above, it is difficult to view it as an external document or a completed disposition document made by the defendant as a receiver. In particular, in light of the lack of the addressee’s entry, transmission method and delivery process, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have expressed his intent to transfer the termination of the pledge right to the Defendant. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the evidence No. 8 corresponds to a disposition document that corresponds to the facts alleged by the Defendant.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the pledge contract of this case was terminated between the Plaintiff and Dae Natural News, only with the statement of No. 8 and the testimony of Non-Party 1 (Non-Party 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) of the witness Non-Party 8, and there

오히려, 을 제1, 2호증, 을 제3호증의 2, 을 제5 내지 7호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 증인 소외 1의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 다음 ① 내지 ⑤ 사실이 인정된다. ① 대자연네트웍스는 원고로부터 지급받은 임대차보증금을 아울렛 운영 자금으로 사용하기 위하여 원고와 피고 등을 비롯한 이 사건 건물 관련 채권자들과 협상을 진행하였다. ② 대자연네트윅스는 이 사건 건물에 관하여 체결된 담보신탁계약의 내용을, 수익권 금액 1,000,000,000원인 3순위 우선수익자로 원고를 설정하는 것으로 변경하되, 원고가 이 사건 질권을 해지하여 대자연네트웍스로 하여금 이 사건 예금을 아울렛 운영 자금으로 사용할 수 있게 하는 방안을 제시하였다. ③ 이 사건 건물 관련 채권자로서 위 담보신탁계약이 변경됨으로써 3순위 우선수익자에서 4순위 우선수익자로 변경될 한라건설 주식회사는 2010. 10. 12.경 피고 역삼역지점장 앞으로 위와 같은 방안에 동의한다는 내용의 서면을 발송하였다. ④ 피고가 2010. 12. 13.경 소외 2로부터 받은 원고의 기안용지에는 이 사건 임대차계약의 임대차보증금에 대한 담보가 예금질권설정에서 신탁원부에 3순위 우선수익자로 등재되는 것으로 변경된 후 현재 담보인 은행예금에 대한 질권설정을 해지할 예정이라고 기재되어 있었다. ⑤ 원고와 대자연네트윅스 사이에 원고의 이 사건 건물에 대한 환가 요청 권능 등을 두고 다툼이 있어 담보변경과 질권 해지는 결국 이루어지지 않았다.

According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff had already secured a pledge on the deposit as security of the lease deposit of this case did not change the content of the security under the security trust contract, it seems that there was no reason to terminate the pledge contract of this case. Therefore, even if the pledge contract of this case was not terminated due to the failure to change the security between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Dae Natural News, the Defendant is deemed to have been terminated only by the notice of cancellation of the pledge, and it is determined that the deposit of this case was paid to Dae Natural

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the pledge contract of this case was terminated is without merit.

D. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of disposition with the Defendant’s consent

(A) The defendant's above assertion contains the assertion that the deposit of this case was paid with the consent of the pledgee, and we examine this.

(B) The evidence No. 8 cited by the Defendant is the content of the termination of a pledge agreement, and thus, cannot support the existence of the Plaintiff’s declaration of consent on its face. This also does not have the appearance of the completed document, nor does it read the expression of consent in this context.

In addition, in full view of the statement No. 7-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 7-2 and the testimony of the non-party 1 of the witness, the "Notice of Approval for Amendment to the Conditions of PF Loans" prepared by the head of the defendant's investment finance division, stated that all documents related to the change of the condition related to the change of the security deposit of the lease deposit of this case are collected after collecting the documents related to the change of the condition, and that the change of the condition is dealt with after collecting the request for the cancellation of the right of pledge from the plaintiff, and there is no counter-proof.

According to the above facts, the defendant was aware that the security of the lease deposit of this case was changed from the establishment of the deposit deposit to the registration of the third priority beneficiary in the trust ledger, and then the plaintiff would have terminated the pledge contract of this case against the Dae Natural Neits. Therefore, it is unreasonable to interpret the objective meaning of the evidence No. 8 as the consent to the disposition of the pledged article by the plaintiff, who is the pledgee.

If we look at all the circumstances seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the above evidence No. 8 alone does not provide the pledgee’s consent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Ultimately, the Defendant’s assertion that the above act of paying the deposit against the v. N. N. S. S.W. was conducted with the pledgee’s consent is without merit.

E. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant violated the principle of good faith or good faith

(A) Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion on the above assertion contains the notification of transfer under Article 452(1) of the Civil Act and the assertion on the violation of the good faith principle, and thus, I examine it.

(B) Even if the actual pledgee fails to terminate the pledge agreement or becomes null and void even if the pledgee notifies the third obligor of the termination of the pledge agreement, the possibility of analogical application of the above provision cannot be ruled out because it is the same as it is necessary to protect the trusted third obligor.

However, as seen earlier, it is impossible to recognize the intent of the Plaintiff to notify the Defendant of the fact of the cancellation of the pledge (Evidence B No. 8) as the receiver. In this respect, it is evident that the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. In addition, in light of the circumstances indicated in the instant case, in particular, the fact that the Defendant paid the instant deposit, solely based on the fact that the Defendant paid the instant deposit, cannot be inferred as a bona fide third person who trusted the notice of the cancellation of the pledge (Evidence B No. 8) sent by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to

In other words, comprehensively taking account of the statements in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of Nonparty 1, the following facts may be acknowledged: (1) In order to terminate the pledge contract, it is necessary to confirm whether the original copy of the pledge termination notice is consistent with the seal impression (sign. 1) and obtain approval from the head of the team, and obtain approval from the head of the team and the head of the sales store. (2) The Defendant’s dominant branch did not receive a letter of security change agreement from Korea Construction Co., Ltd., which changes the most important three priority beneficiaries from among all the documents related to the change of conditions from Korea Construction to the Plaintiff. (3) Although Nonparty 1, who is the employee of the Defendant, was not equipped with the original copy of the pledge termination notice, Nonparty 2 requested on December 16, 2010 to “the Plaintiff’s request on December 16, 2010, Nonparty 2 received only a copy of the pledge termination notice by facsimile, and accordingly, paid the deposit in this case from the company’s loan.

In addition, as seen earlier, the defendant also knew that the notice of termination of the pledge of this case should be terminated at the same time as the change of the security, not just termination of the pledge contract, but also the change of the security.

According to the above factual relationship, even though the securing of the Plaintiff’s substitute security right was not confirmed, the Defendant did not undergo certain verification procedures required by the internal regulations and social rules of the Defendant Bank under the status of having a substantial interest in prompt investment of business funds. In light of these circumstances, there is a strong doubt whether the Defendant may be deemed bona fide as to the termination of the pledge contract of this case, and whether there is no negligence.

Therefore, it is clear that the defendant's argument is not reasonable even if he acted on the part of the violation of the principle of good faith.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from May 15, 2012 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified without a determination as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, and it is revoked the plaintiff's appeal and ordered to order the defendant to pay the above amount. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)