사해행위취소
1. The extent of KRW 433,00,000, concluded on February 5, 2010 between the Defendant and C does not exceed KRW 64,122,29.
1. The existence and scope of the preserved claim;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff on January 31, 2008, with the effect that C newly constructs eight households of multi-household houses on the land owned by D and then acquires six households of multi-household houses in return. 2) C entered into a notarial deed with the Plaintiff on February 19, 2008, a notary public on February 19, 2008, as an issuer 86 of C, the payee, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s amount of KRW 75 million at the face value, the date of issuance on January 31, 2008, and July 31, 2008, the date of payment on July 41, 2008, with the certificate No. 475, Mar. 4, 2009, the date of payment on March 30, 200, respectively, with the issuer, Plaintiff C, the payee, and the due date of payment on March 29, 2009.
3) Meanwhile, around June 3, 2009, C repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 19,20,000,000 among the obligations based on the notarial deed of the said promissory note. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 19,577,701 out of the claims based on the notarial deed of the said promissory note in the real estate compulsory auction procedure (F). [In the absence of any grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 19,57,701 among the claims based on the notarial deed of the said promis
B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff asserted that C has paid 64,122,299 won based on the notarial deed of the above Promissory Notes. 2) The Defendant, August 21, 2008, C has paid 50,000 won on August 21, 2008, KRW 13350,000,000 won on September 12, 2008, KRW 7050,000 on September 22, 2008, KRW 700,000 on April 30, 200, KRW 180,000 on May 209, and KRW 5,02 million on the notarial deed of the above Promissory Notes. However, it is difficult to recognize this only by the evidence (Evidence 14) by the Defendant.
[False, the judgment dismissing C’s claim on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge C’s assertion that C’s claim was null and void, or that C’s claim was repaid KRW 31 million out of its due debt, on June 1, 2012, which was filed by C against the Plaintiff on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes (this Court No. 2011Da51990).