beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.06.13 2016가단2990

사해행위취소 등

Text

1. The sales contract concluded on May 7, 2015 between the Defendant and C is revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a joint and several surety, lent KRW 60 million to D, but the Plaintiff did not receive the said debt, and the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C with the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Guj367, the Dong Branch Branch Branch Court of the Chuncheon District Court, and applied for payment order against C on December 15, 2015, and the said order was finalized on February 26, 2016.

B. C on May 8, 2015, registered the transfer of ownership to the Defendant on the grounds of sale on May 7, 2015, with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, C was in excess of its obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6 through 8, 10 through 12 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact inquiry results on the Gangnam market of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against C can be a preserved claim for revocation of a fraudulent act, and the transfer of the instant apartment to the Defendant, the creditor of C, who is one of the creditors, constitutes a fraudulent act.

In addition, it is reasonable to see that C was aware that the sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to creditors including the plaintiff, and the defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed also presumed.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that it is bona fide.

1 In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Gap's 3 through 5, Eul's 2 through 5, 7, and 8, the following facts are recognized:

① The Defendant joined the 20 to 30 years’ membership in the fraternity operated by C’s spouse D and friendly relationship D.

② D The amount of money borrowed from the source, including the Defendant, and the amount of money borrowed from the other party, even though the amount of money is in excess of the debt amount of KRW 2 billion on or around 2012.