사해행위취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Basic Facts
Since 201, the Plaintiff leased a factory to C (hereinafter referred to as “E”) operating the E, and when the rent is in arrears and the cost of restoration was incurred, the Plaintiff notified the Nonparty of the implementation thereof on September 24, 2014, and thereafter, from February 2014 to December 2015, the amount of KRW 427,500,000, including the overdue rent of KRW 217,500,000,000, and the restoration cost of KRW 210,000,000, were requested to pay the payment order of the agreed amount of KRW 20,50,000, and the payment order was finalized on April 5, 2016.
On March 26, 2012, the Nonparty established D Co., Ltd. (the trade name before the change: F Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and registered the Nonparty as an internal director and the Defendant (the de facto marriage relationship with the foreign director) as the internal director and the representative director.
On September 1, 2015, Nonparty Company completed registration of retirement from inside directors and representative directors on the ground of retirement on March 26, 2015.
On June 1, 2016, the Nonparty closed all E and non-party companies, and filed a petition for bankruptcy on February 1, 2017, and rendered a ruling of bankruptcy on May 15, 2017, Ulsan District Court 2017Hadan77.
[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 14, and 17 through 19, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings was transferred to the non-party company to the non-party company in excess of his/her debt on April 10, 2015 (hereinafter "the remittance of this case"), which constitutes a fraudulent act. Furthermore, since the non-party company is merely an individual company of the defendant and is in fact in the status of the beneficiary, the defendant must return to the plaintiff KRW 45,60,000,000.
Judgment
The Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the premise that the remittance of this case is a fraudulent act that reduces active property of the Nonparty, which is the creditors’ joint collateral. Therefore, we examine whether the remittance of this case constitutes such a fraudulent act.
First, on April 10, 2015, the non-party company is the non-party company under the name of the non-party (E).