사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. B participated in a national research and development task supervised by the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology, and received government contributions, but due to the discontinuance of the task, the Plaintiff was liable for the settlement of 113,232,000 won around November 9, 2012, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the claim for the settlement of accounts against B of the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology on May 31, 2014.
B. On November 28, 2012, B entered into the instant acquisition agreement with the Defendant to transfer all intellectual property rights, goodwill, sales claims, movable property, etc. related to online game “C” and completed the registration of program copyright transfer on December 20, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 4, 7, and 8's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the transfer of this case is a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of B who had not been in excess of the obligation, and sought the revocation thereof, and also sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of program copyright transfer as a restoration.
3. In a case where a debtor reduces a liability property, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation of creditor should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the act, such as the ratio of the subject matter of the act to the debtor’s entire responsible property, degree of insolvency, legitimacy of the economic purpose of the juristic act, reasonableness of the act in question, the duty or circumstances of the act, degree of perception of the party concerned about the shortage of joint security, such as the existence of collusion between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the degree of perception of the risk of lack of common security, the final determination of whether the act can ultimately be
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 2010). The instant acquisition agreement is concluded based on the foregoing legal doctrine.