사해행위취소
1. It was concluded on October 31, 2018 between the Defendant and C Co., Ltd. regarding KRW 21,427,348, out of the bonds listed in the separate sheet.
Basic Facts
On September 20, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of guarantee to C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) for the obligation of loans by the Plaintiff, on or around September 20, 201, subrogated to C’s obligation of the above loan, and the amount of KRW 3,90,122,280 due to the above subrogation was entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors in the Ulsan District Court 201 Malsan District Court 201 Ma17
C On October 31, 2018, the Defendant transferred the instant claim in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Defendant. Upon delegation of C’s authority to notify the assignment of claims, the Defendant notified D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) of the instant claim assignment on May 24, 2019.
In addition, C transferred the bonds to the Defendant as indicated in the following table, and notified each of them.
On October 31, 2018, the third debtor's transfer date of D (State) 200,000,000 on October 24, 2019, the third debtor's transfer date of D (State) deposit of KRW 100,000,000 on October 31, 2018, May 27, 2019, F (State) 100,000,000,000,000 on May 31, 2018, the defendant deposited KRW 30,00,000,000,000,000 on May 31, 2018 (State) and deposited KRW 30,00,00,000,000,000,000 on May 31, 2019, the defendant received the deposit money of this case with the district court on June 25, 2019 (State) 10,004,60840.
On the other hand, on August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff received the Ulsan District Court Order 2019TTT No. 7726 on the claim for the price of goods against the third debtor, such as C’s D as the executive title, and the seizure and collection order of the above claim was served on the third debtor at that time.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion that the assignment of claims of this case is a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditor, since Eul transferred its own responsible property to a third party with insolvency.