beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.24 2017가단26589

사해행위취소

Text

1. B’s issuance of promissory notes with face value of KRW 400 million against the Defendant on February 25, 2016 within the scope of KRW 105,851,794.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 1996, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20 million to B at the rate of 13% per annum and 17% per annum on July 23, 1999, but the Plaintiff did not refund the principal and interest of the loan. However, on February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a payment order against B to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 100,76,484 won and 24,871,208 won per annum from August 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

B. On February 25, 2016, B issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 400 million, and written a notarial deed with respect to the said promissory note on the same day.

C. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received an order to seize and attach claims against the Hyundai Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Transport”) by using the claim based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes as a claim bond pursuant to the said Promissory Notes (hereinafter “Modern Transport”); and (b) subsequently became final and conclusive around that time.

B did not have any particular property other than the above-paid credit, and as of October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff’s principal and interest credit against B was totaled KRW 105,851,794, and the Defendant received KRW 30 million from modern traffic in accordance with the above-paid claim attachment and assignment order.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 5, fact-finding results on the Court Administration Office, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the Plaintiff’s principal and interest claim against B had already existed prior to the issuance date of the above Promissory Notes against Defendant C, it can be considered a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act. Since B did not have any particular property other than the above-mentioned payment claim at the time of the issuance of the above Promissory Notes, B issued the above Promissory Notes to the Defendant, and by preparing a notarial deed, let the Defendant attach his wages and other claims against modern traffic.