logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.05.08 2019가단111386
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. The Plaintiff and C’s transaction content 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing gaseous and liquid filters, etc. under the trade name of “D,” and C is E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

2) On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff lent C(E) KRW 30 million to C(E) and supplied written notes equivalent to KRW 130 million on June 15, 2017.

3) Although C agreed to pay the above loan and the money in writing to the Plaintiff as soon as it was paid by the company it supplied, C did not pay it to the Plaintiff. On October 10, 2017, C filed a complaint with the purport that C, without any intent or ability to pay the above loan and money in writing, by deceiving the Plaintiff without any intent or ability to pay the said loan and money in total, 160 million won (hereinafter referred to as “instant criminal case”).

(B) Around January 4, 2017, transaction content 1) C(F) between C and the Defendant entered into a service agreement with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “asset management company”) that is an agency for the Defendant’s financial restructuring (hereinafter “asset management company”) to provide technical advisory services, such as the Defendant’s review of facilities, and C to receive KRW 100 million (the first KRW 50 million, the second KRW 50 million, the second KRW 50 million, and the value-added tax separately) as the service cost (hereinafter “instant service agreement”).

2) On May 25, 2018, after the payment of the first service cost to C, the asset management company entered into a transfer contract with the Defendant with the content that the Defendant would take over the instant service contract. 3) On May 28, 2018, the Defendant paid to C the second service cost of KRW 5 million (including value-added tax; hereinafter “instant bonds”).

C. On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment ruling against C with the U.S. District Court 2018Kadan12018 (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment ruling”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A No. 1.

arrow