beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.05.29 2017가단3688

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On July 26, 2005, the Plaintiff received a payment order against F and E, the Defendant’s parent, to the effect that “F and E shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,140,000 and interest or delay damages thereon,” in the loans extended by the Jeonju District Court Decision 2005Hu701, 200, 200.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”) On September 22, 2014, C completed the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on September 22, 2014, which is one’s own ownership, due to sale on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 4, 5, Eul 1's evidence, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff has a claim against Eul under the payment order of this case. The plaintiff purchased the real estate indicated in the attached list by the title trust to the defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant.

E’s above act constitutes a fraudulent act and must be revoked. The registration of provisional seizure of D Co., Ltd., which was completed on December 28, 2016 by the 21098 registry office of the Jeonju District Court regarding real estate listed in the separate sheet after the aforementioned fraudulent act, shall also be revoked. The Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer as to real estate listed in the separate sheet, and to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer in the name of E in which the above purchase amount

Judgment

The obligee’s right of revocation is a right to preserve the obligor’s property for all creditors by cancelling the obligor’s property through the act of reducing the obligor’s general property while being aware that the obligee would prejudice the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da2534, Feb. 10, 1995). The sales contract for which the Plaintiff seeks revocation as a fraudulent act is concluded between the Defendant and C, and the Plaintiff is a preserved claim.