사해행위취소
1. A donation contract concluded on June 8, 2016 between the Defendant and C with respect to one-half shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
1. Under the underlying facts, each of the following facts is without dispute between the parties, or it is recognized in full view of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 6, and Eul evidence 6, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal commission as to D, and there is no counter-proof.
On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to C at the interest rate of 24% per annum on May 28, 2016, and C delayed payment of the principal and interest to be due.
B. As of August 13, 199, C was awarded a successful bid in the voluntary auction under its own name with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under its own name as of August 25, 199. On June 8, 2016, C entered into a donation contract with the Defendant, who was identified on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate as of Jun. 8, 2016, Suwon District Court’s Magsan Branch Branch Office (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) as of Jun. 8, 2016.
C. On the other hand, C married with the Defendant on April 14, 1993, but reported the divorce on August 1, 2016.
C was in excess of the debt at the time of entering into the gift contract of this case (the fact that there was no dispute), and the real estate of this case was almost the sole property of C, and the value at the time was equivalent to KRW 176,00,000,000. The real estate of this case was in excess of the maximum debt amount as of November 19, 2013, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as the debtor C and the Nong Bank Co., Ltd. was completed.
2. Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act
A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as C’s transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of its obligation, the instant gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act and thus ought to be revoked.
(2) For this, the Defendant did not have a proper place of work, and did not have a monetary punishment.