사해행위취소
1. On August 6, 2014, a consultation on the division of inherited property on August 6, 2014 between the Defendant and B is held on August 9,135.
1. The right to be preserved for revocation of fraudulent act;
A. 1) The Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. lent KRW 30,000,000 to B on June 10, 2014. 2) The company transferred the loan claim against B to the Plaintiff.
3) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against B with the Gwangju District Court No. 2017 Ghana63896, and on November 1, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 14.9% per annum from October 27, 2017 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 8,237,261 and the amount of KRW 7,559,97, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. (iv) On September 4, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B with the Defendant, who is the same resident, with respect to KRW B, 2/13 of the inheritance shares in each real estate listed in the separate sheet, as the receipt registration office of Jungjin District Court No. 6420 on the grounds of the agreement on the share inheritance on August 6, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as "disposition") . [Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the loan claims as of June 10, 2014, and thereafter, B disposed of after the loan claims occurred, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim becomes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.
2. According to the establishment of fraudulent act and the purport of the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 9, and 10 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, as to B at the time of the disposal, there were no active properties other than 2/13 shares of each real estate listed in the attached Table inherited to B at the time of the disposal, while there were no other active properties, on the other hand, there were loans owed to the same life insurance company or the Plaintiff, and there was a debt excess or excess due
B was aware that the creditor's joint security has been reduced by dispositive act, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.
Although the defendant did not know that he was liable for the loan, he did not stand in good faith.