사해행위취소
1. Payment of the respective amounts of KRW 464,00,000 and KRW 130,000,000 as of November 14, 2013 to the Defendant in B, as of October 31, 2013.
1. Basic facts
A. B’s real estate transaction and capital gains tax imposition disposition 1) B is the real estate in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by C on September 30, 2013.
(2) E sold the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer from C, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2410, Sep. 30, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24284, Oct. 31, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24279, Oct. 31, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24445, Oct. 31, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24
3) B on December 31, 2013, the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant real estate by the Plaintiff’s Dongjak Tax Office (hereinafter “instant transfer income tax”).
(4) The Dongjak tax secretary notified B of the payment of KRW 701,40,430 of the transfer income tax of the instant case by March 31, 2014. However, B did not pay it until now, and based on October 26, 2015, the filing date of the instant lawsuit, as of October 26, 2015, B’s delinquent amount of the transfer income tax of the instant case was KRW 857,119,730.
B. B paid the money to the Defendant, out of the purchase price of the instant real estate, KRW 464 million on October 31, 2013, and KRW 130 million on November 14, 2013, each transfer of KRW 130 million to the account under the name of the Defendant, his wife, thereby paying the Defendant a sum of KRW 594 million (hereinafter “each of the instant monetary payments”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. B, in excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion, donated to the Defendant KRW 594 million out of the purchase price of the instant real estate, and the Defendant was well aware of such circumstances as the wife B, and thus, each of the instant monetary payments constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.
Even if each of the instant monetary acts were to be repaid, it constitutes a fraudulent act, in collusion with the Defendant, who is a specific creditor, with the intent of harming the Plaintiff, who is another creditor.
(b).