사해행위취소
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim modified in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
Defendants and C.
Basic Facts
On May 16, 201, the Bankrupt Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Game Savings Bank”) concluded a credit transaction agreement with C on a credit limit of KRW 369,00,000, the expiration date of the credit, the annual interest rate of KRW 11.5% per annum, and the delay compensation rate of KRW 23.5% per annum (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction agreement”) and lent KRW 369,00,000 to C as of June 16, 201, and C took charge of the principal and interest of KRW 453,77,449 (hereinafter “the principal and interest of this case”) under the said credit transaction agreement with the Gyeonggi Savings Bank as of June 16, 2013 (hereinafter “the principal and interest of this case”).
C On June 14, 2013, the Defendants entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with a total of KRW 520,000,000 among each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate’s 1/2 shares in the Incheon District Court’s Deputy Branch Branch No. 37687.
On the other hand, the real estate listed in the attached list No. 3 was incorporated into M District Urban Development Project, and the compensation amount of KRW 26,457,738 was set to the Defendants in the course of adjudication for compensation for the obstacles, and the said real estate was destroyed in the course of the above project on April 26, 2016.
On July 1, 2013, the Gyeonggi Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Mahap88, and the plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of Gap's Nos. 1 through 4, 12, and Eul's Nos. 16, 17 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings, which resulted in excess of obligations by entering into the sales contract of this case. Thus, the sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors including the plaintiff, and the sales contract of this case must be revoked.