beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.10 2015가단5319704

사해행위취소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the instant lawsuit

A. The pertinent Plaintiff married with the deceased E, thereby having her F, and the Defendant married with C to have her husband G.

Although F and G were married couple who completed a marriage report, there was a divorce between F and G.

B. F and C were in the same business relationship between F and C, and F and C, from around 2003, jointly operated the PC on the 5th floor of the building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul. 2) For the above PC operation, C leased the above building from the building owner H, and the lease deposit was KRW 120 million.

3. However, the above PC was closed on May 13, 2010, and C changed its category of business to the head of the Gu.

C. On February 1, 2013, the lessee of the said PC building changed, C transferred to the Defendant, the spouse, a claim for the refund of the deposit for the said PC building. On the same day, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between H and the building owner H to lease the said building at KRW 120 million.

On May 4, 2010, the money loan agreement between the deceased E and C was signed by a notary public with the document No. 115, No. 115, No. 2010, No. 2010, the money loan agreement between the deceased E and C.

In the above notarial deed, it is stated that the net E lends 40 million won to the defendant.

E. The deceased E’s death and inheritance-related net E died on March 21, 2015.

The heir, who is the Plaintiff and his/her spouse, was F, I, and J. On September 22, 2015, the agreement was reached on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff acquired by himself/herself the claim against the Defendant C based on the monetary loan agreement under the above “D.”

F. On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation and reinstatement, asserting that the agreement between C and the Defendant on the transfer of the right to claim the return of the lease deposit constituted a fraudulent act detrimental to the claim under the monetary loan agreement under the said “D” against the deceased E.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The summary of the argument;