사해행위취소 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff, the defendant B, and C are dismissed.
2. Revocation of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act added at the trial.
1. cite the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act of basic facts;
2. Revocation of a fraudulent act and request for reinstatement;
(a) cite the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act in the primary claim part;
B. (1) The Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim portion (1) the Defendant D transferred the instant call architecture’s business right, which is the only property of the Defendant C, to the Defendant in excess of his/her debt on December 22, 2011. As such, the said transfer contract between the Defendants constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff.
On May 31, 2013, Defendant C transferred its business rights to Defendant B, and also constitutes a fraudulent act that deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, including the Plaintiff.
Since it is impossible to return the original object of the instant call text business, it shall be restored to its original state by means of compensation. As it is clear that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D and the value of the instant call text business right exceeds KRW 150 million, the above transfer contract should be cancelled within the scope of the above amount, and the Defendant B, a malicious purchaser, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 and damages for delay.
(2) The Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted in the instant complaint (i.e., December 22, 2011) that “Defendant D had committed a fraudulent act on September 1, 2013, since he/she had no property registered in his/her own name transferred his/her license to Defendant B in a false manner while he/she had been in excess of his/her liability, the said transfer contract must be revoked.” The Plaintiff’s title No. 2 attached to the said complaint (Supreme Court Decision 2012Gahap7161 Decided December 13, 2012, which is the Plaintiff and Defendant D) asserted that “A had been registered as the first Defendant D’s business operator on December 22, 2011, which is a party to the said complaint.”