사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. B obtained credit loans from the KF Capital Co., Ltd. (former Korean Social Co., Ltd.) and lost the benefit of time thereafter.
B. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for loans from the above company to B, and applied for a payment order against B to the court.
On September 1, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court issued a payment order (the 16,447,324 won and the 12,007,841 won among them) (the 16,447,324 won and the 12,007,841 won) on September 1, 2014, and the b did not dispute this.
C. On April 25, 2015, the Defendant’s husband of the deceased (hereinafter “the deceased”) owned real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and died on April 25, 2015, the Defendant’s husband of the deceased, and the deceased and the Defendant, as the wife of the deceased and the Defendant, there were the foregoing B and D.
The Defendant, on April 25, 2015, completed the registration of ownership transfer solely on May 21, 2015 due to the agreement division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement division”) on the instant real estate on April 25, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion B renounced 2/7 shares of the instant real estate, which are one’s own inheritance shares, through the consultation and division in this case with a view to excess of debt. Such consultation and division constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of B, and thus ought to be revoked.
The defendant shall make a registration of transfer of 2/7 shares of the real estate in this case to B for reinstatement.
3. Determination
A. In this case, although there was no evidence to acknowledge the excess of B's obligations, the following are known by each entry in Eul 1-3 evidence (including the number of pages) and the purport of the entire pleadings, regardless of this point.
Considering the circumstances stated in Paragraph (1), the instant agreement division cannot be deemed a fraudulent act, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
(b).