사해행위취소등
1. The sales contract concluded on May 21, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between C and D is KRW 23,351,092.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 31, 2008, 36 months of the loan period and 25% of the interest rate were determined and lent to C on October 31, 2008.
B. On December 22, 2011, our social group transferred the above loan claims against our social group C, and around February 11, 2012, notified C of the assignment of claims.
C. C does not pay the balance of the principal of the loan as of August 29, 2012, KRW 12,168,502, and interest and damages for delay until December 22, 2011, KRW 9,592,684, and damages for delay from December 23, 2011 to August 29, 201, plus KRW 23,351,092 (=12,168,502 won) and KRW 1,589,906).
C On May 21, 2009, between D and D, entered into a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 90 million with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the only property of C (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment on May 26, 2009.
E. As to the instant apartment, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 10, 2012 to Defendant A for sale on April 9, 2012, and Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 16, 2012 to Defendant B for sale on May 10, 2012.
F. As to the apartment of this case, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor C and the mortgagee as two community credit cooperatives, was completed on July 14, 2005, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 59.8 million, and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 22.1 million on May 14, 2008, respectively. However, each of the above surrounding mortgages was cancelled on May 16, 2012, which was after the contract of this case.
G. On the other hand, on April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to the original state (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Da33491). On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff (no pleadings).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 shall be written respectively.