사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Claim 1. A between Defendant B and E on November 23, 2010 and November 25, 2010.
A donation contract, such as the statement in the claim, is concluded, and accordingly, the claim 1.B.
The fact that each registration of ownership transfer as described in the paragraph has been completed, and the purport of the claim 2 on December 2, 2010 between Defendant C and Defendant B.
The mortgage contract, such as the statement in the claim, is concluded, and accordingly the claim 2. B.
The fact that each establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, such as the entry in the port, was completed, and the claim 3.0 of December 8, 2010 between Defendant D and Defendant B.
Pursuant to this, trade reservations, such as entry, have been entered into, and accordingly, the purport of the claim 3.B.
The fact that the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, such as the entry in the paragraph, has been completed, does not conflict between the parties.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. Before each gift contract, mortgage contract, and pre-sale contract under the above 1.1., the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement of KRW 7,355,00 for funeral expenses, etc. of parents against the same student E, and a claim for refund of custody amount of KRW 77,29,281 for the Defendant B, the husband, E and the husband.
B. At the time of the conclusion of each gift contract, mortgage contract, and purchase and sale reservation under the above 1.1., the E and the Defendant B had already been in excess of obligations, or had been placed in excess of obligations due to each of the above disposals.
C. Therefore, since each gift contract, mortgage contract, and purchase and sale promise under the above 1. fall under a fraudulent act prejudicial to the general creditors of E including the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s revocation of each of the above legal acts, as well as restitution following such revocation, sought for the cancellation of each of the above legal acts, each of the registration of ownership transfer, establishment registration of neighboring mortgage, and ownership transfer claim under the above
3. Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, whether the E was in excess of the obligation at the time of each gift agreement, or was in excess of the obligation due to such excess, ② whether the Defendant B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the said contract, ③ Defendant B exceeded the obligation at the time of the said promise to sell and purchase.