beta
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2014.08.28 2013가단5964

사해행위취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s preserved claim B, on May 26, 2009, transferred income tax of KRW 75,688,640 due to the transfer of forest land, such as Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, etc. owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has the above capital gains tax claim against B.

B. B made a pre-sale agreement and sales contract between B and the Defendant on April 1, 201, and concluded a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”) as stated in the purport of the claim on the same day. On August 30, 2012, based on the instant provisional registration, the principal registration was completed on August 24, 2012 on the basis of the instant provisional registration.

(2) At the time of the establishment of the provisional registration of this case, the right to collateral security of KRW 54,00,000, the maximum debt amount of KRW 54,000,000, made under the name of the Korean Sg Standards Bank on February 29, 2008, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 6,840,000, which was made on November 11, 2010, is set.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is a fraudulent act between B and the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case, the pre-sale contract and the sales contract are presumed to be the defendant's bad faith, so the above pre-sale contract and the sales contract should be revoked. As to the plaintiff's assertion that B had a duty to cancel the provisional registration of this case and the registration of ownership transfer based thereon, the defendant asserted that B had a duty to restore the provisional registration of this case and the registration of ownership transfer based thereon, the defendant is asserting that B had a duty to restore the provisional registration of this case and the provisional registration of this case was established as a security and

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 10-1 through 11, Nos. 10-1, 1, 2, and 2, B is a lecture member other than the real estate of this case as of April 1, 201, which is the date of establishment of provisional registration of this case.