사해행위취소
1. The Defendant and B entered into an agreement on August 17, 2016 with respect to the share of 3,264/46,200 square meters among the forest land C, 13,600 square meters in Kuju-si.
1. Basic facts
A. D borrowed KRW 99.6 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea on September 2, 2014 under the Plaintiff’s guarantee, and D’s former spouse was jointly and severally guaranteed by D under a guarantee agreement between D and the Plaintiff.
B. As a guarantee accident occurred to D on July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a guarantor, subrogated 80,790,227 won to the Industrial Bank of Korea on November 8, 2016.
C. The amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against B is KRW 81,39,97 (i.e., KRW 80,790,227 of subrogated payment of KRW 609,770 of subrogated payment of KRW 80,79,770 of subrogated payment of KRW 80,79,227) and damages for delay from November 8, 2016 to the date of repayment of the subrogated payment of KRW 80,790,227 of the amount
On the other hand, on August 17, 2016, B entered into a donation contract with the defendant, who is his father, on the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of its disposition (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer stated in paragraph (2) of the disposition.
According to the gift contract of this case, B only owned the property equivalent to KRW 29,271,340 (3,264/46,200 of each forest land E, F, G, and H in the original state).
【Grounds for Recognition】 1-15 Evidence (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination as to the cause of a claim where an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee may apply to the court for its revocation and restitution. 2) In principle, the obligee is entitled to claim the revocation and restitution of the claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation prior to the commission of a fraudulent act. However, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations which form the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim is to be established in the near future based on such legal relations. In fact, where the probability has been realized in the near future and the claim has been established, the obligee