beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.02.09 2015가합27143

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff of the preserved claim set the amount of KRW 600 million at 5.8% per annum to the Urban Environment Improvement Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee of the Urban Environment Improvement Project in the Urban Finance Promotion Zone, and the said Promotion Committee jointly and severally guaranteed the said loans owed to the Plaintiff by the said Promotion Committee.

B. On October 8, 2014, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant at KRW 730,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and on October 13, 2014, B completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate to the Defendant based on the instant sales contract.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract against B’s insolvent, B was insolvent, and it did not own any other property except the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff had a joint and several liability claim of KRW 600 million and interest thereon with respect to B at the time of the instant sales contract, which led to the reduction of the obligees’ joint and several liability by selling the instant real estate, which is the only property of B, and was not in excess of the debt.

As such, the sales contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act, and B sells the real estate of this case, which is its sole property, so it can be sufficiently recognized that the sales contract of this case was insufficient to secure joint collateral and its creditors were aware of it, and the defendant, who is the beneficiary, is presumed to be malicious.

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's bona fide defense, the defendant of this case.