beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.18 2017나57202

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff C deposited KRW 178,200,000,000 in his money, from the Ansan Scholarship Saemaul Bank account (Account NumberO; hereinafter “instant account”) under the name of the Defendant, as a deposit money for the decision of permission to sell the instant case, and transferred the instant dispute claim to the Defendant in de facto marital relationship at the time of the instant dispute claim, which is a claim for recovery of deposit money for appeal, under the status of insolvent.

Even if the above KRW 178,200,000 is not C’s money, but C’s loan to the Defendant, and even if the transfer of the instant dispute claims is the transfer of claims in lieu of the repayment of the above loan claims, it shall be revoked as a fraudulent act in collusion with the Defendant, thereby undermining other creditors.

In addition, when the decision to permit the sale of this case was revoked and the decision to refuse the sale became final and conclusive, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 1782 million and the delay damages for the payment of the deposit amounting to KRW 178,200,000,000,000,000 to the dispute claim of this case.

B. The Defendant borrowed KRW 178 million from C to use the decision of permission for the sale of this case for the payment of the deposit for appeal and actually deposited the said money as the deposit for appeal, and as such, the instant dispute claim was transferred between C and C in lieu of the repayment of the above loan claim, this does not constitute a fraudulent act.

3. Determination

A. According to the existence of the preserved claim and the above facts of the insolvency of C, the Plaintiff’s claim against C had already been established before the transfer of the dispute claim of this case between the Defendant and C, and at the time of the transfer of the dispute claim of this case, C is acknowledged to have been insolvent.

(b)a fraudulent act;