사해행위취소
1. The Defendant and C Co., Ltd. concluded on December 26, 2012 with respect to the size of 1,818 square meters of Gangwon-gun D Forest land.
1. Case summary
A. On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) sold at KRW 300 million in the purchase price; (b) concluded a sales contract with C as to KRW 150 million in the purchase price; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer as to KRW 201 in the household floor by constructing a multi-household house on the instant real estate within one year and completing the registration of ownership transfer as to KRW 150 million in the remainder of KRW 150,000 in the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (d) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of C with regard to the instant real estate in the name of C.
B. On December 26, 2012, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant real estate owned by C (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”) and completed the establishment registration of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million and the Defendant of the mortgagee.
C. At the time of the instant mortgage contract, the establishment registration of a senior mortgage establishment was completed on the instant real estate with the third party mutual savings bank (hereinafter “third party mutual savings bank”) as the mortgagee.
(hereinafter “Priority Security”). D.
Samcheon Mutual Savings Bank filed an application for the auction of real estate rent to the Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon District Court Young-gu Branch for the instant real estate, and received the decision on voluntary auction from the above court (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the Defendant received dividends of KRW 84,544,020 as the second mortgagee in the instant auction procedure.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 16-1, 2, and 3-3, A.16-1, 2, and 3 of this court, the result of each fact inquiry into the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. In the light of the Plaintiff’s claim, the instant mortgage contract is a fraudulent act and thus should be revoked.