사해행위취소
1. The agreement concluded on March 10, 2014 between the Defendant and B on March 10, 2014 with respect to a 397 square meters wide between the Defendant and B.
2...
B The creditor Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gahap513294) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that the contract between B and the Defendant constitutes fraudulent act and was rendered a favorable judgment on December 10, 2015 on the ground that the contract between B and the Defendant constituted fraudulent act.
Although the defendant appealed and the Seoul High Court (2016Na2006284) is currently proceeding with the trial, the various evidences submitted in this case are examined, there is no circumstance to judge differently from the above judgment.
In the end, the donation of the above land to the Defendant, who is one of its own children, in excess of the debt, is a removal of property to be used as a joint security for general creditors (i.e., even if the above land was donated to the Defendant according to the maintenance of the 'B's attachment), so long as it is apparent that it was a property registered in B's name until the donation transfer was made to the Defendant, the transfer of ownership to the Defendant should have been made in advance if it was an intention to maintain B. Nevertheless, if it was an intention to maintain B, the ownership should have been transferred to the Defendant. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the conclusion of the donation contract was made and the transfer of ownership was made only after the credit guarantee occurred at the time of the occurrence of the credit guarantee accident) and it constitutes a fraudulent act by infringing upon the rights of general creditors and is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act (i.e.,, there is no evidence proving that the Defendant was bona fide). This court also concluded
Other grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the attached Form.