beta
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2020.09.15 2020가단101919

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Case summary and judgment

A. On March 26, 2020, the Plaintiff’s summary of the case is a creditor holding a claim in attached Table 2 against C as of March 26, 2020, and 1/2 of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 that C owned by it, which was donated to the Defendant on March 26, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the claim, is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the entry in

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the above donation contract between C and the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and seek its revocation and restitution.

C. Determination 1) Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the part concerning 1/2 shares (the shares held by the Defendant at the beginning) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is not subject to a gift contract between C and the Defendant, is without merit by itself. 2) Division of property pursuant to divorce is a system that has the economic difficulty in the nature of liquidation of joint property achieved through mutual cooperation between both spouses during marriage, and has the characteristics of support to the other party, which is economically difficult. As such, even though the debtor in excess of his/her obligation is divorced and transfers a certain property to his/her spouse as a division of property, the division of property would result in the reduction of joint security against the general creditor by exceeding the reasonable extent pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance that it is deemed that such division of property is excessive beyond the reasonable extent pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it is not subject to revocation by fraudulent act, but can be subject to revocation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da63516, Feb. 9, 2001). 3No. 5, and 1 through B.