사해행위취소
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. The gift contract concluded on June 3, 2016 between the Defendant and C is concluded.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 20, 201, C of the Plaintiff’s claim 1) on December 20, 201, C of the Plaintiff, “The price of goods shall be KRW 45,774,310 per annum 20% per annum, and shall be repaid in installments by not later than February 28, 2012 and April 30, 2012.” 2 of C of the notarial deed of debt repayment agreement was prepared and issued to the Plaintiff on July 28, 2013.
3) The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 23,000,000,000, from June 4, 2014 to May 27, 2015, through the seizure and collection of claims against C’s obligor D. B. As to the real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) recorded in the [Attachment C] List, the preservation of ownership was completed in the name of E Corporation on March 3, 2011, and C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment on April 26, 2016.
2) On June 3, 2016, C is the donation of the instant apartment on the same day (hereinafter “instant donation contract”).
(2) The registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “instant ownership transfer”) in the name of the Defendant, the wife, on the ground that the ownership transfer is registered.
Upon completion of the proceedings (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The fact that C is insolvent at the time of the gift agreement of this case is determined as to the cause of the claim does not conflict between the parties.
C’s act of donation to the Defendant, the sole property of which is the apartment of this case, to the Defendant, is a fraudulent act against the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and the intention of the Defendant is recognized, unless there are special circumstances.
On the other hand, the defendant's bad faith as beneficiary is presumed.
Therefore, the gift contract of this case should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership of this case for restitution.
B. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant Company C was responsible for living with the Defendant’s workplace life in around 2008, while engaging in vinyl sales business.
around 2011.