사해행위취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts below the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, taking into account the overall purport of the arguments.
A. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased from C the entire land and the buildings on the land of the Seocho-gu Busan and its ground (hereinafter referred to as “the entire land and buildings” in this case) for KRW 700 million, and the lease period from November 11, 2014 to November 10, 2016.
B. On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the above deposit KRW 700 million to C, and completed the registration of establishment of a new mortgage over the instant telecom with the maximum debt amount of KRW 700 million, C, the debtor C, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and E.
C. The Defendant married with C on November 28, 2008, but divorced on April 6, 2015.
On November 5, 2014, the Defendant purchased F apartment 102, 703, 102, and 703 (hereinafter in this case, the apartment of this case) from Kimhae-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on December 3, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 3, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring establishment of the F apartment 10,400,000 won with respect to the apartment of this case, the debtor, the debtor, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the neighboring establishment of the mortgage of the debtor, B, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, respectively.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant purchased the instant apartment during the marriage with C, C was a donation to the Defendant of the purchase fund of the instant apartment. (2) At the time when C donated the purchase fund of the instant apartment to the Defendant, C was insolvent.
3) Therefore, C’s donation of KRW 200 million to the Defendant of the purchase fund of the instant apartment constitutes a fraudulent act and ought to be revoked. 3.1) The Plaintiff asserted that C donated KRW 200 million to the Defendant of the purchase fund of the instant apartment, but did not specify the date, but the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant apartment on November 5, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future on December 3, 2014, and thus, it was from November 5, 2014 to December 3, 2014.