사해행위취소
1. The sales contract concluded on September 8, 2015 between the defendant and the non-party C with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet was concluded on September 8, 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, in the event of the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty C, lent to C a total of KRW 118 million on December 30, 2013, KRW 20 million, KRW 60 million on January 6, 2014, KRW 178 million on January 17, 2014, and KRW 18 million on January 17, 2014.
On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a payment order with C seeking payment of the above loan claim, and the original copy of the payment order was served with C on July 29, 2014, and the above payment order was finalized on August 13, 2014.
(Seoul Southern District Court 2014j7357).(b)
C’s disposal of real estate against the Defendant was acquired money from October 201 to November 15, 2012 from around November 2015, 2012 by acquiring money from the Defendant as the sale price for apartment units, and was liable for damages arising from a tort of at least KRW 1,555,200,000. On September 9, 2015, on the ground that the sales contract was concluded on September 8, 2015 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) was concluded against the Defendant on September 8, 2015, and the accord and satisfaction agreement concluded in the form of a sales contract as of September 8, 2015 was concluded.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found in the establishment of a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff had monetary claims against C at the time of the instant act of disposal, and further, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments and evidence revealed earlier, it is recognized that C transferred the instant real estate, the sole property of which is the instant act of disposal, under the pretext of payment in kind to the Defendant, who is the specific creditor, through the instant act of disposal in excess of debt. Therefore, the instant act of disposal constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that other creditors, including the Plaintiff, would be harmed, and the Defendant,
Therefore, the plaintiff raises objection against the defendant as the beneficiary.