beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단5243200

대여금

Text

1. Defendant A and B are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

(a) The Defendant from May 21, 2016, as well as KRW 28,565,043.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the loan claim against Defendant A and B

(a) Indication of claims: It is as shown in Appendix 2;

(b) Claim against Defendant A: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

(c) Claim against Defendant B: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the revocation of fraudulent act against Defendant B and C and the claim for restitution to its original state

A. Basic facts (1) The Plaintiff had each security deposit claim against the Defendant B as shown in attached Form 2.

(2) Around April 15, 2016, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant C to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 13 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). As for the instant real estate as of April 20, 2016, Defendant C’s ownership transfer registration was completed on April 15, 2016 due to the sale of the instant real estate by Samcheon District Court Samcheon District Office (No. 5478, Apr. 20, 2016).

(3) Defendant B did not have any active property other than the instant real property at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) According to the above facts, although at the time of the instant sales contract, although the Plaintiff’s claim for security deposit did not actually accrue, there was a legal relationship which has already been concluded as a joint and several guarantee agreement, which serves as the basis for the occurrence of the claim, and on June 18, 2016, approximately two months from the date of the instant sales contract, Defendant A Co., Ltd., the primary debtor lost its interest due to delinquency in the loans, thereby causing the Plaintiff’s claim for security deposit against Defendant B. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for security deposit against Defendant B becomes a preserved claim seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.

(2) The intent to commit fraudulent acts and to commit suicide (A) is in excess of the obligation owed by Defendant B.