사해행위취소 등
1. As to shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. The gift contract entered into on July 24, 2015 between the Defendant and B is a donation contract.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff entered into a card loan agreement with B, who is a credit card member, to obtain a loan by telephone or Internet without preparing a separate document. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff offered a credit card loan to B by means of transfer of KRW 15 million to B via a credit card information and password entry procedure, a mobile phone certification procedure under one’s name, and a family call procedure for identification.
B. On July 27, 2015, B completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 24, 2015, with respect to each real estate share stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate share”), which is the sole property of B, for the Defendant, the husband, the Defendant, as the husband.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, B completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on donation to the Defendant with respect to the portion of the instant real estate, which is the sole property of B, and thus, the above donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances as a result of the lack of joint security of general creditors.
Therefore, the contract of donation concluded between the defendant and B on the share in the instant real estate shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer which was completed with respect to the share in the instant real estate as restitution
B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was originally purchased as the Defendant’s funds, and that the trust was made in the name of 1/2 as the wife B, and that it did not constitute a fraudulent act merely returned to the Defendant’s name after the termination of title trust. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant real estate share was the property trusted to B, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.