beta
Text
1. The Defendant completed the receipt C of July 26, 2012 with respect to the construction machinery stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 3, 2010, E, which operated D Company, prepared and issued to the Defendant a certificate of borrowing KRW 17.5 million with respect to the soil and sand of F land at Ansan-si.
B. On June 16, 201, E again prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate stating that the Defendant shall pay the said KRW 17.5 million to the Defendant up to June 30, 201, and that the payment shall be made in addition to the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 3% per month from September 3, 2010 to the said payment date (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”).
C. The Plaintiff Company, the owner of the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the construction machinery of this case”), entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant on the construction machinery of this case with the obligor and the mortgagee, the Plaintiff Company, and the mortgagee and the mortgagee, and accordingly, the mortgage agreement was completed on July 26, 2012 with respect to the construction machinery of this case, which was received C on July 26, 2012, with the claim price of KRW 17.5 million, the obligor Company, the Plaintiff Company, and the Defendant (hereinafter “the mortgage of this case”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff Company: The Plaintiff Company only concluded the instant mortgage against the Defendant only in the amount of KRW 17.5 million, which is the bond value of the instant mortgage against the Defendant. Therefore, the instant mortgage should be cancelled inasmuch as the Plaintiff Company fully repaid to the Defendant by October 10, 2014, the amount of the claim value of the instant mortgage to the Defendant by October 1, 2014. (2) The Defendant Company is the actual representative of the Plaintiff Company, and the said KRW 17.5 million, which was agreed upon by the Plaintiff Company to pay to the Defendant, is also the obligation against the Defendant of the Plaintiff Company.
Therefore, E prepares and delivers the cash custody certificate of this case to the Defendant.