사해행위취소
1. As to 1/3 shares of real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on July 25, 2019 between the Defendant and D.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Nonparty Co., Ltd. holds claims equivalent to “24,629,425 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from May 1, 2012 to the date of full payment” with the payment order (2012, May 15, 2012,) issued by the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012) No. 1983, Apr. 26, 2012.
The Plaintiff acquired the above claim around November 2014.
B. F owned real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and died on July 25, 2019 with G, D, and Defendant (each share of inheritance 1/3) as inheritor’s children.
(c)
On January 23, 2020, the Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate due to the “Succession by Division under Self-Agreement on July 25, 2019.”
There was no special property in the name of D at the time of the agreement on division of the above inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”).
【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 and 8, and each fact-finding with respect to the head of Geumcheon-gu Office of this Court, head of Geumcheon-gu Tax Office, and Minister of Court Administration, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim against D, which existed at the time of the instant division agreement, is subject to the revocation of the fraudulent act.
2) At the time of the instant split-off agreement, D’s act and intent had the Plaintiff bear the obligation to pay for the acquisition of the property without any specific property. However, as D’s act and intent had reduced the joint collateral against the general creditor by giving up the right to the inherited property upon the split-off agreement, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes an act committed against the Plaintiff, a creditor.
In addition, D was aware of the fact that the instant split-off agreement would result in the shortage of common security for general creditors.
The defendant's intention is presumed to be the beneficiary.
3) The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is as follows: ① The net F is around April 200.