사해행위취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim against D for reimbursement with the Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana1520253, and on April 17, 2009, from the above court, “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 15,182,002 won and 13,241,652 won among them, 5% per annum from October 31, 1992 to July 28, 1999; and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The Plaintiff was determined on May 9, 2009.
The amount of claims against the Plaintiff’s D following the decision on performance recommendation is KRW 32,373,650 (based on September 27, 2018).
The Defendants, as their children, purchased each of 1/2 shares of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building F (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in total of 450,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 16, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 to 5
2. With respect to the claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution, the plaintiff made D to donate the purchase fund of the real estate of this case to the defendants who are his own children and acquired the real estate of this case. D's conclusion and delivery of a real estate purchase fund contract with the defendants under the above obligation to the plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act that deepens the excess of its obligation. Thus, D's contract of donation between the defendants and D should be revoked as a fraudulent act within the limit of KRW 32,373,650, which is the plaintiff's claim amount, and the defendants are obligated to pay 16,186,825 won ( = 32,373,650 won ± 2) to the plaintiff due to restitution.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that D donated the real estate purchase fund to the Defendants around February 2015, when the Defendants acquired the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further review.
3. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the invalidity of title trust, the Plaintiff entered into a so-called contract title trust agreement between D and the Defendants.