사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit insurance contract with B with the Plaintiff.
The object of the guarantee is the obligation to return the loan to the national bank in B, and the rate of delay damages is 15% per annum.
B was granted a loan of KRW 72 million from a national bank as security on the same day.
B From April 22, 2013, the interest on the above loan obligation was overdue.
On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,513,083 to the National Bank.
As of October 6, 2015, the sum of principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against B is KRW 17,706,450.
B purchased on July 19, 2008 the real estate listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the amount of KRW 145 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 29, 2008.
B entered into a contract on April 13, 2015 to sell the instant real estate, which is its sole property, to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 2015.
On August 3, 2011, the instant real estate was Kim Jong-do, but the right to collateral security was established in the future of the Saemaul Depository. However, on April 29, 2015, after the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred, the Defendant discharged the secured debt of KRW 73 million and cancelled the repayment.
At the time of the instant sales contract, the amount of the secured debt is also KRW 73 million.
The value of the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract is KRW 90 million, which is currently the same.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), the results of fact inquiries by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this court, the National Court Administration, and the Korea Credit Information Institute, and the results of the order to submit financial transaction information to the Saemaul Bank, but as a result, the plaintiff's assertion of the whole purport of the argument by the parties concerned is the sales contract of this case where Eul bears the above indemnity obligation against the plaintiff.