beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.01.08 2018가단13341

사해행위취소

Text

1. As to KRW 25,788,938 and KRW 25,544,546 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A shall have 12% per annum from May 23, 2018 to July 6, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against Defendant A 1) The Plaintiff and Defendant A, on January 29, 2014, enter into a credit guarantee agreement with each of the credit guarantee principal (hereinafter “each of the credit guarantee agreements of this case”) with each of the following grounds: (a) the credit guarantee term on January 20, 2019; (b) the credit guarantee principal of 8,500,000; and (c) the credit guarantee term on October 8, 2015; and (d) the credit guarantee principal of 20,000,000.

(2) Defendant A submitted each credit guarantee statement issued under each credit guarantee contract of this case to C Bank, and delayed payment of the debt for the loan. A credit guarantee accident occurred around January 16, 2018, and the Plaintiff subrogated to C Bank on May 23, 2018, totaling KRW 25,544,546.

3) In each of the instant credit guarantee agreements, Defendant A agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the expenses incurred in preserving and exercising the right acquired by the Plaintiff as a result of the performance of the guaranteed obligation, by applying the rate of delay damages determined by the Plaintiff. The amount of expenses incurred in preserving and exercising the claim for indemnity that the Plaintiff acquired as a result of the said subrogation is KRW 244,392, and the rate of delay damages applied at the time of May 23, 2018, which is the date of the said subrogation is 12% per annum. B. Defendant A, on February 7, 2018, establishing a right to collateral security as to real estate listed in the separate sheet, with Defendant B, for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant mortgage agreement”).

(2) Defendant B entered into a mortgage contract of this case and registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) pursuant to Article 13235 of the receipt of indictment from the Jeonju District Court

(C) Defendant A’s debt excess status was more than the active property at the time of the instant mortgage contract. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including a serial number, and Party B’s prior statement to the U.S. administration at the time of the instant court.