사해행위취소
1. Defendant medical corporation F is the Plaintiff’s KRW 29,983,721, Plaintiff B’s KRW 5,445,00, Plaintiff C’s KRW 17,879,00, and Plaintiff’s medical corporation.
Of the grounds for the claim indicated in the attached Form of the judgment on the claim against the defendant foundation, the part related to the above defendant's claim is identical to the part related to the above defendant's claim. The judgment on the claim against the defendant company under Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by deeming the confessions to be a claim against the defendant's foundation; the plaintiff Eul is a claim for the price of goods against the defendant's foundation; the plaintiff Eul is a 2,203,700 won; the plaintiff Eul is a 5,45,000 won; the plaintiff Eul is a 17,879,000 won; the plaintiff Eul is a 7,800,000 won; and the plaintiff Eul holds
On September 29, 2017, the Defendant Foundation sold the instant real estate to the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) in excess of its obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors.
Therefore, the instant sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act.
Judgment
According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), it is recognized that the defendant foundation entered into the instant sales contract with the defendant company in excess of the debt on September 29, 2017, with the sales price of 12 billion won. We first examine whether the instant sales contract constitutes fraudulent act.
"Fraud" subject to creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Code refers to an act detrimental to the general creditor by a debtor's active property reduction, increase of a negative property, thereby in excess of his/her obligation, or deepening the status of excess of his/her obligation.
According to the overall purport of the above macroscopic evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and evidence No. 2, the defendant foundation was liable to pay a large amount of national taxes, wage obligations, general commercial transactions obligations, etc. due to business difficulties, and the registration of seizure or provisional seizure due to the disposition of arrears from September 2014 to September 2017 was completed for the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the defendant company exceeds the amount appraised at the time of the compulsory auction procedure for the real estate of this case.