[건설] "양도금지 특약 위반한 채권양도는 무효"
함용남
경제
기사등록일 :
2020.04.06 11:37
A 건설회사는 파산했다. 이 회사에는 회생절차 관리인이 있었다. 이 관리인은 농업협동조합중앙회를 상대로 공사대금 소송을 수행했다. 이 소송의 상고심에서 대법원은 농협중앙회의 상고를 기각했다. 원고 일부 승소로 판결한 원심을 확정했다. '채권양도 금지특약'에 위반한 채권 양도는 원칙적으로 무효라는 기존 판례가 유지됐다.
A construction company went bankrupt. The company had a rehabilitation procedure manager. The manager filed a lawsuit against the Agricultural Cooperative Federation. In the appeal trial, the Supreme Court dismissed the NACF's appeal. The centrifugal ruling that was ruled by winning some manuscripts was confirmed. In principle, the existing precedent was kept that the transfer of bonds in violation of the 'Special Agreement on the Transfer of Bonds' is void.
A건설사 회생절차 관리인은 농협을 상대로 미지급한 공사대급 지급을 요구하는 소송을 제기했다. 이미 양도한 공사대금 채권까지 포함했다. 재판 과정에서 농협측은 하청 업체들이 특약 조건을 몰랐고 주장했다. 또한 하청업체들이 모르는 것에 중대한 과실이 있었던 것도 아니라고 주장했다.
A construction company's rehabilitation procedure manager filed a lawsuit against the Agricultural Cooperatives for payment of unpaid construction payments. It also includes construction loans that have already been transferred. During the trial, the NACF claimed that subcontractors did not know the terms of the agreement. He also claimed that there was no significant negligence in what subcontractors did not know. [정리 = 함용남 시사법률 크리에이터]
A construction company went bankrupt. The company had a rehabilitation procedure manager. The manager filed a lawsuit against the Agricultural Cooperative Federation. In the appeal trial, the Supreme Court dismissed the NACF's appeal. The centrifugal ruling that was ruled by winning some manuscripts was confirmed. In principle, the existing precedent was kept that the transfer of bonds in violation of the 'Special Agreement on the Transfer of Bonds' is void.
A건설사 회생절차 관리인은 농협을 상대로 미지급한 공사대급 지급을 요구하는 소송을 제기했다. 이미 양도한 공사대금 채권까지 포함했다. 재판 과정에서 농협측은 하청 업체들이 특약 조건을 몰랐고 주장했다. 또한 하청업체들이 모르는 것에 중대한 과실이 있었던 것도 아니라고 주장했다.
A construction company's rehabilitation procedure manager filed a lawsuit against the Agricultural Cooperatives for payment of unpaid construction payments. It also includes construction loans that have already been transferred. During the trial, the NACF claimed that subcontractors did not know the terms of the agreement. He also claimed that there was no significant negligence in what subcontractors did not know. [정리 = 함용남 시사법률 크리에이터]
