사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Legal status, etc. of C;
A. C Co., Ltd. (1) on December 23, 2013, 2013, transferred credit card payment claims against C to E Limited Company, and thereafter transferred its claims to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). In the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2017 Ghana324917, “C shall pay to F Co., Ltd the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 13, 2017 to the date of full payment.” (2) F Co., Ltd. (a) on March 8, 2018, transferred its claims to C based on the above judgment, and notified the transfer of claims to C, and the principal and interest of claims against C at the time of the instant lawsuit is the sum of KRW 19,410,410,295, 105, 2394, 2394, 204, 3564, 2064, 2016.
B. C’s disposal dispositive act 1) C and the Defendant were legally married on March 9, 192, and among them they delivered G H and I date J. 2) C concluded a sales contract on August 9, 2016 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant disposal disposition”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name on August 10, 2016, as the receipt of the registration of the Gwangju District Court, No. 143076, Aug. 10, 2016.
At the time, the market price of the instant real estate was approximately KRW 180 million.
3) A and the Defendant filed an application for confirmation of intention of divorce with the Gwangju Family Court on August 2016, and received a written confirmation of intention of divorce from the same court on September 12, 2016, and filed a report of divorce on September 12, 2016. [Evidence A and Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 1 through 3 of the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;
A. The summary of the parties' assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion was omitted in insolvency by disposing of the real estate of this case, which is the only property owned by himself, to the defendant. The disposition of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant is running a travel business around September 2008, and in Jeju-do.