logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.07.14 2019가단138016
부인의 청구를 인용하는 결정에 대한 이의
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 44,159,000 to Egymba-main B.

B. On February 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with regard to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant mortgage registration”) in its name on February 12, 2013.

C. Upon the conclusion of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and B, B was in excess of the debt at the time of the completion of the instant mortgage registration. The real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 of the attached Table No. 2 owned by B was registered for the establishment of a mortgage and the provisional attachment of KRW 12,01,150,000 (the maximum debt amount), and the lessee (the security deposit amount of KRW 30 million) was residing in the instant real estate.

After the completion of the registration of the instant right to collateral security, multiple provisional seizures were completed on the real estate listed in attached Table 1, and the auction procedure was conducted, and the decision of compulsory commencement was rendered on September 2014 on the instant real estate.

E. B filed a petition for bankruptcy with the District Court on January 25, 2019 (2019Hadan138). The Defendant filed a claim for denial on the ground that the contract of this case is subject to the avoidance power with the said court, and the said court decided to accept the Defendant’s claim on October 28, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was in excess of the obligation of B, and it was difficult to cash flow because the Plaintiff was unable to encash real estate, and thus, the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to avoidance as a bona fide beneficiary.

B. According to Article 391 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a trustee in bankruptcy shall be the debtor.

arrow