beta
Text
Defendant A’s 27,913,943 won and 27,645,492 won among them to the Plaintiff, 8% per annum from March 31, 2020 to June 2, 2020.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.
2. Determination
A. Judgment based on the service period of publication by Defendant A
B. The act of acquiring a right of collateral security, which is secured by the debtor, either transferring real estate, the sole property of which is the debtor, other than a real estate, to another person or providing a person among creditors, is an act of reducing the property that should be jointly secured by all creditors, and barring any special circumstances, it constitutes an act of infringing on joint creditors, barring any other special circumstances.
As seen earlier, Defendant A, who did not have any particular property other than the instant real estate, entered into a contract to establish a collateral and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral in the attached list, which was recorded in the attached list, where Defendant A had no property for collateral value between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, constitutes an act of causing the reduction of common creditors’ joint security, such as the Plaintiff, etc., and is presumed to have been aware of the intent of the Defendant Company as the beneficiary of
In regard to this, Defendant Company was in continuous business relationship with Defendant A, and only set up a collateral for the security of the non-exclusive claim and was bona fide. However, according to the above legal principles, even if the Defendant was a genuine creditor, the Defendant’s act of reducing the liability assets of other creditors, such as the Plaintiff, etc. itself constitutes a deceitful act. Thus, Defendant Company’s defense on the ground of this part is without merit, and otherwise there is no other evidence to acknowledge the good faith of Defendant Company’s claim is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement against the defendant A, the cancellation of the act of causing harm to the defendant B and the claim for restitution are with merit.