사해행위취소
1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows according to the succession of the lawsuit by this court.
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff of the Intervenor’s credit against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) agreed on August 19, 2014 that the Intervenor would have occupied the instant building on November 1, 2014 after completing the construction of the instant building by setting the deposit amount of KRW 201,222 square meters among the instant building to be leased to the Intervenor from October 30, 2014 to October 30, 2015, and immediately receive deposit amount of KRW 20,000 from the Intervenor until September 30, 2014. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25788, Oct. 30, 2014>
B. On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s position as the owner of the instant building and the Plaintiff’s change of name were to change the name of the owner of the instant building to the Defendant who was de facto in a de facto marital relationship, and the instant building was not yet completed.
C. On February 12, 2015, the Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on February 12, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation procedure. The Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to the effect that the agreement on transfer of the name of the building owner concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant building was revoked as a fraudulent act, and that the Plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure to change the name of the building owner to the Plaintiff. 2) On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedure with Daejeon District Court 2015da25626, and was decided to commence individual rehabilitation procedure on November 18, 2015
3) Even after the decision to commence the aforementioned individual rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff did not take over the instant legal procedure, and this court ordered the Plaintiff to proceed with the instant legal procedure by designating the Plaintiff as the intervenor’s assignee ex officio on October 31, 2016. (4) On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision to the effect that on March 28, 2017, the said individual rehabilitation procedure should exercise the right to set aside against the owner of the building, which was concluded with the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, and fact-finding of the first instance court's public market