사해행위취소
1. Revocation of each monetary donation contract made between the defendant and B (C) with respect to each amount listed in the separate sheet;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B is a person employed from April 20, 2014 to December 3, 2014 by the Plaintiff Company as a D employee, and the Defendant is the spouse B.
B. B embezzled KRW 111,069,90 in total by purchasing personal goods with the corporate card of the Plaintiff Company from April 30, 2014 to December 2, 2014, or by transferring funds from the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff Company to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff Company B for consumption.
(c) B: B.
On September 15, 2015, the judgment of October was rendered on September 15, 2015 due to the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in paragraph (1), and the judgment of conviction became final and conclusive after filing an appeal and withdrawing an appeal.
Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Ma1275). D.
B Of the money transferred from the Plaintiff Company’s deposit account to its own deposit account, the sum of KRW 62,253,320,000 was transferred to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant used it as card payment, vehicle installment, living expenses, etc.
E. Meanwhile, B applied for credit recovery support to the Credit Counseling and Recovery Committee, and paid the repayment before and after 400,000 won each month, and there was no particular property.
[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10; the new bank business support center head of this court; the IBK business support head of the Korea Bank; the director of the Korea Bank Business Support Center; the director of the Korea National Bank Business Support Center; the director of the Korea National Bank Business Support Center; the president of the Han Young Saemaul Bank Business Support Center; the director of the Han Young Bank Business Support Center; the results of each order to submit financial transaction information to the representative director of the Hyundai Capital Capital Corporation; and the results of inquiries about the fact-finding
2. According to the facts found in the existence of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff has the damage claim of KRW 111,069,90, which is equivalent to the amount embezzled against B, and this constitutes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.
3. Fraudulent act and intent B had been proceeding for recovery of credit due to excessive debts around 2014, and particular assets.