beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.24 2018가단5128169

사해행위취소

Text

1. It was concluded on January 27, 2016 between the Defendant and the Nonparty C District Housing Association on each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 25, 2008, the non-party C District Housing Association (hereinafter “the non-party C District Housing Association”) obtained authorization from the head of Dongjak-gu, the head of Dongjak-gu, Seoul and implemented the new construction and sale project of the non-party C apartment with six and 582 households (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

B. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff lost the status of a member of a non-party partnership, and accordingly, the Plaintiff has the claim for refund of KRW 108,545,825 and the damages for delay, out of the sales price paid to the non-party partnership as the former member.

C. On January 27, 2016, the non-party union entered into a contract to donate each real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant gift”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant gift”). On February 3, 2016, the non-party union completed each of the instant real estate transfer registration (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate transfer registration”) to the Defendant on the ground of the instant gift, as described in paragraph (2) of the order, immediately after the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the non-party union.

At the time of the donation of this case, the non-party union was in excess of the obligation of the million won, and at the same time, the president of the non-party union was well aware of these circumstances.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If the obligor, in excess of his/her obligation, donated his/her own property to another person, such act constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). According to the above facts of recognition, the gift of this case, which is the property of the association, that was the property of the association, in excess of his/her obligation, is transferred gratuitously to the Defendant who was well aware of such circumstances, barring special circumstances.