사해행위취소 등
1. The sales contract concluded on July 9, 2014 with respect to the area of 760 square meters prior to the wife population C, which was permissible between the Defendant and B, shall be revoked.
2.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff issued and delivered a credit card to B. From May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff began to pay the credit card use fee from May 27, 2013. As of July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff has a total of KRW 7,701,065, including the principal and late payment charge, etc.
B. B, on July 9, 2014, concluded a sales contract to sell the land listed in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Defendant, who is the head of the disposition, for KRW 17,200,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as prescribed in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition.
C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, B was the land of this case, and B was also liable for the total amount of KRW 62,415,417 to the National Bank, the Dai Loan Company, and the Gai Capital Company, in addition to the credit card payment obligations against the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1 to 9 statements, the response of each order to submit financial transactions to the court of this Court, lot loan corporation, lot capital corporation and national bank, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Determination
A. The alteration of a fraudulent act and the sale of real estate, which is only the sole property of an obligor, is a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, to the extent that it is easy for the obligor to consume them with money, and the obligor’s intent to commit a fraudulent act refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint collateral for the claim, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, and thus does not require any intent or intent to harm the obligee. In a case where the obligor sells real estate, which is only the sole property, and alters the apartment in money easily for consumption, into money, the obligor’s intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). According to the above legal principles and facts, the act of selling the apartment of this case, which is the only property of the obligor B, to the Defendant
B. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion