사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On November 22, 2013 between C and the defendant with respect to the instant real estate after the trial, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the contract and restitution of the original status as the gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, the examination of evidence was conducted through the examination of evidence, such as documentary evidence submitted by both parties during the fourth date for pleading, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and the inquiry of the fact about the Korea Credit Information Institute.
Judgment
According to the facts premised on Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the provisional number), the plaintiff has a claim for indemnity based on a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da202427) against Eul, and the defendant can recognize the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the same day donation from C on November 22, 2013.
The plaintiff's assertion that the above donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and the plaintiff seeks restitution along with its revocation. On the other hand, the defendant is arguing that C was not in a state of debt excess at the time of the donation contract.
Judgment
According to the fact-finding inquiry reply to the documentary evidence submitted by both parties and the Korea Labor Welfare & Welfare Corporation, in light of the time of the donation contract, C was in KRW 12,017,150 as well as the loan obligation to the Ariju Capital in addition to the property such as the attached document.
Therefore, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to prove that C was in excess of its obligation at the time of the above gift contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unnecessary to further examine.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is not reasonable, and it is dismissed.