사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement between B and B, which is a loan of KRW 80,000,000, and a loan of general operating capital of a company.
B fails to perform an agreement to repay in full on September 26, 2017, which is the date of repayment, and thus, the remaining principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s loan to B is KRW 14,848,030 (=10,044,146) (i.e., interest accrued at KRW 4,337,451 prior to incorporation of the recovered principal and KRW 46,433).
B. On December 11, 2013, B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on 1/2 shares of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate shares”), which is the only property of the Defendant and B (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said shares under the name of the Defendant as the registration office of the Daegu District Court under the name of the Defendant.
C. The senior mortgage registration (the maximum amount of claims KRW 129,600,000) was cancelled as the Defendant’s repayment after the donation contract of this case.
The value of the instant real estate at the time of the instant donation contract is KRW 198,00,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts that the exclusion period has expired since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 2, 2017, more than one year after the date of the instant donation contract, which was at least one year after the date of the instant donation contract.
According to the statement No. 4-1, the Plaintiff’s delay in payment of interest from October 30, 2016, and on November 8, 2016, sent to B a notice of “the notice of loss of interest due to an obligor’s delay” with the effect that the Plaintiff would be repaid before November 14, 2016 (the scheduled date of November 14, 2016). According to the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff lost the interest due to November 14, 2016, and that the Plaintiff became aware of the instant gift contract as the Plaintiff’s creditor became aware of the cause for revocation.