logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가단29625
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 10, 2006, C paid D an investment amount of KRW 200,000,000 to D, but did not receive the refund, and the Defendant, the husband of D, made an agreement that D, around April 30, 2010, shall be liable for the total amount of the principal and interest on investment KRW 300,000,000 (hereinafter “instant one agreement”). On August 10, 2010, C completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage of this case”) around the maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000,000, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the establishment of a mortgage of this case”).

B. B. On March 30, 2014, C delegated the Plaintiff with the authority to notify the transfer of the claim of KRW 100,000,000,000, out of the agreed amount of KRW 300,000 under the instant agreement, which was secured by the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant agreed amount”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent the notice of the transfer of the said claim to the Defendant by content-certified mail around the 31st of the same month, and the said notice was delivered to the Defendant on April 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of 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 the Plaintiff, who received the claim for the agreed amount of the contract in this case, the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and the delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that the obligation of the contract amount of this case had already been extinguished before the defendant was notified of the transfer of the above obligation.

According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 7, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: D shall pay dividends and surplus funds received from the auction procedure of the building F on October 11, 201 and D shall be paid to C on the F on the ground of Osan-si, Osan-si, and C shall invalidate the agreement No. 1 of this case and immediately cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring building of this case.

arrow