사해행위취소
1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. A. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff sold and supplied DV New Hew H.Cet (hereinafter “instant product”) to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff entered into a total sales store contract that can sell the instant product as an agent for the hospital in Seoul and Gyeonggi area (including Incheon), with the exception of a university hospital.
B. Since then, the Plaintiff confirmed that the non-party company did not hold the domestic general sales authority on the instant product, and did not receive a non-benefit decision on the instant product from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, unlike the agreement, notified the non-party company of the termination of the contract at the above total sales store. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party company as Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap91752 against the non-party company on September 25, 2014.
C. Meanwhile, around September 18, 2014, the non-party company transferred the name of the motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) to the Defendant.
After the filing of the instant lawsuit, on December 29, 2014, the Defendant transferred the name of the instant automobile to the non-party company, and the non-party company transferred the name to the third party on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 14 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Gap 20 evidence 1 and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion of the parties is the auditor of the non-party company and the representative director C of the non-party company, so it is well aware that the non-party company's creditor's execution of claims would be difficult, but after the lawsuit of this case, the non-party company took part in the act of escape of responsible property by re-transfering the vehicle to the non-party company and then transferring the name
Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.