beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.10.21 2020나301023

사해행위취소

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

annex . of claim.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition or dismissal of the content as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. In addition, the following shall be added between the three pages 2 and three in the judgment of the court of first instance.

“The Defendant asserts that the active property of C should include the amount equivalent to KRW 12,954,676 of the price returned to the above head office among the goods stored in the warehouse for infant goods stores around June 2018 by C as the transaction agreement deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000 paid by C when entering into a contract with the head office for infant goods store,” but the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 42 and 50 are insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

3. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows from the third to the 15th 21st .

“Claims protected by obligee’s right of revocation shall, in principle, have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, in a case where, at the time of a juristic act, there is high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim would have been created by the near future legal relationship, and where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792, Jan. 12, 2012). C had not yet accrued at the time of concluding a sales contract entered into with the Defendant on April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s prior indemnity claim against C had already been concluded prior to the occurrence of a credit guarantee agreement, which is the basis of such legal relationship, and three months past the conclusion of the said sales contract.