사해행위취소
1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list, a contract establishing a right to collateral security concluded on January 21, 2014 between B and the Defendant is established.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with B as of June 19, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant credit guarantee agreement”) with the credit guarantee principal as of June 20, 201, and issued a letter of credit guarantee as of June 19, 2014 at the Central Branch of Busan High Bank (hereinafter “New Bank”); and B obtained a loan of KRW 50,000,000,000 from the New Bank on June 21, 2012 based on the said credit guarantee agreement.
B. A credit guarantee accident occurred on March 25, 2014 due to the failure to repay the above loans, and the Plaintiff subrogated to the new bank for the amount of KRW 50,000,000 on June 3, 2014, interest of KRW 378,657, total amount of KRW 50,378,657.
C. On January 21, 2014, B entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant as to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which is the only property at the time, and completed the registration of creation of a collateral of KRW 20,000,000 for the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “registration of creation of a collateral”) to the Defendant as the Jeonju District Court’s receipt of January 21, 2014, as the receipt of No. 2848, Jan. 21, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Defendant on the instant real estate in excess of his/her liability and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant real estate is a fraudulent act committed with the intent of undermining the creditors, including the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, sought its revocation and restitution.
B. The existence of the preserved claim 1 ought to be determined by the obligee’s right of revocation, in principle, that the claim may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen before the act was performed. However, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, and that claim is based on the