사해행위취소
1. The Defendant and B entered into a contract on November 10, 2014 with respect to two-fourths of share out of the area of 175.9 square meters in Jung-gu, Daejeon.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) On February 8, 2011, the Plaintiff’s credit against E&P (hereinafter “instant credit”) transferred the instant credit to the Plaintiff on December 22, 201, on a yearly basis, KRW 3,800,000 to B, with interest rate of KRW 8.81% per annum and KRW 38.81% per annum for delay damages. (2) On December 2, 2013, the Social Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant credit”). On December 22, 2014, it transferred the instant credit to the Plaintiff.
B. A gift contract between B and the Defendant is entered into 1) Daejeon Jung-gu 175.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
) The network D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) shall be
) The Defendant was co-ownership. As the deceased died on October 14, 2013, the deceased’s spouse, B, and E, who were the deceased’s children, completed the share transfer registration according to the inheritance shares due to inheritance on April 30, 2014, B became a 2/14 share holder of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant share”).
(2) On November 10, 2014, B entered into a contract with the Defendant on the gift with respect to the instant real estate share (hereinafter “instant gift contract”), and on November 19, 2014, on November 19, 2014, the Daejeon District Court completed the registration of the transfer of shares based on the instant gift (hereinafter “instant transfer of shares”) with the Daejeon District Court No. 67209, Nov. 19, 2014 regarding the instant real estate share as to the Defendant.
3) Meanwhile, at the time when B entered into the instant gift contract, B had been in excess of the obligation to F, such as having the obligation of KRW 50,000,000 against the Plaintiff in addition to the instant obligation against the Plaintiff. [The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 2 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Determination:
A. Where an obligor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation to determine the cause of the claim, such an act constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41575, Oct. 27, 2014).