beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가단84950

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The Defendant completed the receipt of the attached list No. 66514 by the Daejeon District Court on July 2, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling food, and the price for the goods that was not received for the supply of cotton, sugar, etc. to B from January 2, 2013 to August 7, 2013 is KRW 74,55,630.

B. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet listed in B (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) as the Changwon District Court 2013Kadan3149 on August 20, 2013, and applied for a payment order with the Changwon District Court 2013Kadan2718, and applied for a payment order with respect to the said goods payment order on September 26, 2013, “B shall pay damages for delay and payment with 20% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the Plaintiff, and the said order was finalized on October 15, 2013.”

C. Thereafter, on July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff was forced to commence compulsory auction on the instant real estate to Daejeon District Court C.

B completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on July 2, 2014 (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) with respect to the instant real estate to the Defendant, the birthee, and the maximum amount of debt on July 2, 2014, and the debtor B.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case was made in collusion with the Defendant, and the cause of the establishment was invalid in order to evade the enforcement of the Plaintiff, who was the creditor, without having actually secured claims, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of the instant case against the Defendant in subrogation of the insolvent B

B. The Defendant has the secured claim against B.

Even if B, which was in excess of the obligation, was a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who was a general creditor of B, which entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant, the said contract is revoked.