사해행위취소
1. The sales contract concluded on February 27, 2015 between the Defendant and B is revoked.
2...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s claim against B entered into a goods transaction contract with C around October 2008, and B, the wife of C, jointly and severally guaranteed the goods payment obligation against the Plaintiff.
On February 2, 2015, the price for goods that the Plaintiff did not receive from C is KRW 122,160,379.
B. On February 27, 2015, B and the Defendant’s sales contract: (a) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, who is a partner of C, to sell real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 340 million (hereinafter “instant apartment”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer as set forth in the attached list 2.
C. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, B’s property was the apartment of this case, and B, in addition to the joint and several liability of the Plaintiff, was in excess of the obligation, as the Plaintiff bears the obligation to refund the deposit deposit amounting to KRW 265 million.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 9 evidence, Eul 5 evidence, the purport of the whole 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 the perception 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 impair the obligee. If the obligor sells real estate, which is only the sole property, and changes the obligor into money easily for consumption, then 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 instant apartment, which is the sole property of the obligor B, to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act,
B. The Defendant’s decision on the Defendant’s bona fide defense is as follows: C and B at the time of conclusion of the instant sales contract.