사해행위취소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment of advertising price based on an agreement on June 12, 2009, and was sentenced by the court to “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 185 million and its delay damages.” The above judgment was finalized on April 13, 2012.
(Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap9526, Seoul High Court 201Na50419, Supreme Court 2012Da7564).
On the other hand, as between February 15, 201, the Defendant, the wife of C, entered into a lease agreement with D on the lease deposit amounting to 200 million won, from February 15, 2011 to February 15, 2013, and with the total rent of 24 million won during the lease term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between D and D, which was entered into on January 17, 2009 (hereinafter “previous lease agreement”). This is a new contract with the content of extending the lease term of the previous lease agreement concluded on January 17, 2009 (hereinafter “previous lease”).
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C, as a lessee of the previous lease agreement on the apartment of this case, had a claim for refund of deposit amount of KRW 200 million against the lessor as shown in the attached list (hereinafter “instant claim for refund of deposit”).
However, C transferred the claim for the refund of the instant deposit to the Defendant, who is the wife, under the status of excess of the obligation such as advertising price obligation against the Plaintiff, and made the instant lease contract concluded in the name of the Defendant.
Therefore, C’s above act constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces creditors’ joint security, such as the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, C and the Defendant’s transfer contract of the instant deposit return claim between C and the Defendant should be revoked, and the Defendant shall be reinstated to C.