사해행위취소
1. As to shares 2/9 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. It was concluded on April 19, 2015 between the Defendant and C.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff has 48,00,000 won based on the final and conclusive judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gadan392164 claim against C and damages for delay thereof. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20000, Feb. 10, 2009>
B. On April 19, 2015, the agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) between the Defendant, E, C, and F, the heir, on April 19, 2015, was concluded between the Defendant and E, C, and F, and on the ground that each of the instant real estate was owned solely by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). On the ground of the agreement, the registration office of the Suwon District Court was completed as of October 13, 2015, the registration office of the Suwon District Court received on October 13, 2015.
C. C was in excess of obligations at the time of the instant split-off agreement.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including virtual number), the result of the order to submit financial transaction information, the fact inquiry result, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;
A. According to the facts of recognition under Paragraph 1, C, among inherited property, has reduced joint security for general creditors by making the instant partition agreement to waive 2/9 shares, which are one’s own shares of inheritance regarding each of the instant real estate, among inherited property. As such, the instant partition agreement on shares C-C-2/9 out of each of the instant real estate, is detrimental to C’s creditor’s interests, thereby constituting a fraudulent act, and C’s intent is also acknowledged, and the Defendant’s bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed.
B. The defendant did not know that each of the instant real estate was solely inherited according to D's will, and that the division agreement on C's 2/9 shares among the instant real estate constituted a fraudulent act.
When recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act in the litigation for revocation of the fraudulent act, it shall be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and the debtor's unilateral.