사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 28, 2011, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) deposited money equivalent to KRW 1.250 million in the account number in the name of Nonparty Bank C (hereinafter “D”). B. Nonparty Bank was declared bankrupt on September 7, 2012 (Seoul Central District Court 201Hahap96, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee of Nonparty Bank, who was the bankrupt by the above court, and took over the instant legal proceedings.
C. On the other hand, on February 22, 2012, C is "real estate of this case" as stated in the separate sheet, which is the only real estate between the Defendant and the Defendant.
A) Around that time, a mortgage contract was concluded with respect to the establishment of a mortgage and completed the establishment of a mortgage with a maximum debt amount of 250 million won under the Defendant’s name. [The fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, each entry of No. 3,
2. On June 28, 201, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a loan agreement with the Non-Party Bank (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) to lend KRW 1.25 million to C (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and deposited the said loan into the account of C.
O Even if the non-party bank did not directly conclude the loan contract of this case with C, C grants the right of representation by delivering a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of seal impression to E, which is the husband, so the effect of the loan contract of this case as the agent E extends to C.
O In addition, C has indicated to E the granting of the power of representation concerning the instant loan contract, and E has issued a seal imprint certificate and a certificate of personal seal to a non-party bank and entered into the instant loan contract with the non-party bank as the plaintiff's representative in the status of the plaintiff. The non-party bank has justifiable grounds to believe that E has the authority to conclude the said loan contract.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has a claim against C with respect to the principal and interest of this case, and C has the same collateral as the Defendant in excess of debt.