beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단24001

사해행위취소

Text

1. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on May 16, 2018 between the Defendant and D regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a credit card company that issues and manages credit cards, and D is a person who obtained a credit card from the Plaintiff and used it.

B. On July 5, 2018, the payment order issued by July 25, 2018 was served on D and became final and conclusive on July 25, 2018, where “D shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,964,830 and its delay damages.”

Daejeon District Court No. 201422). (C)

D, on May 16, 2018, concluded a mortgage agreement with the defendant as to each real estate listed in the separate list owned by him/her, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage with the Daejeon Daejeon District Court No. 22246, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, and the debtor of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff has a claim for D with respect to KRW 11,964,830 and its delayed payment damages, which is the subject of the obligee’s right of revocation.

In addition, barring any special circumstance, an obligor’s act of offering real estate owned by him/her to any one of the creditors as mortgage constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance, and in such a case, the obligor’s intent is presumed. Therefore, the above mortgage contract concluded between the Defendant and D with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to D’s general creditors.

Therefore, the above mortgage contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above mortgage establishment registration to D.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.