사해행위취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 2,066,40,000 in total for investment or loans 33 times from September 11, 2014 to October 29, 2015, as shown in the attached Table 2, after hearing the Plaintiff’s statement that he/she would pay 20% of the profits when he/she invested in the auction to D, which is a fishery product import and wholesale retailer, and transfers KRW 50 million from September 11, 2014 to October 29, 2015.
B. D deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby inducing D to do so.
It is the criminal fact that the sum of 2,066,400,000 won has been acquired as stated in the paragraph, and the prosecution has been instituted.
(Resan District Court 2016Gohap295). (c)
On November 16, 2014, the Defendant married with D, and D, from September 12, 2014 to October 22, 2015, remitted KRW 628,797,611 in total from the account under the name of the Defendant to the account under the name of the Defendant, as shown in attached Table 1, to October 22, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as "transfer of this case" in the separate sheet Nos. 1). 【No dispute exists concerning the transfer of this case', each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (which includes a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff D donated the amount to the Defendant by transferring the instant money in excess of the debt, which constitutes a fraudulent act, and accordingly, sought payment of KRW 628,797,611 as the sum of the donations to the Defendant due to the cancellation of each of the pertinent gift contracts and the subsequent restitution.
B. Defendant 1) Since the accounts in the name of the Defendant used for the instant remittance are accounts used by D, the instant remittance cannot be deemed to have been donated to the Defendant by D. 2) Even if the instant remittance constitutes a donation.
Even if the Plaintiff’s claim against D should be excluded from the preserved claim, and as to the remaining claim, whether the preserved claim is established should be determined by each date of remittance of the instant remittance.
3 The remittance of this case constitutes a fraudulent act
Even if the defendant was unaware of D's insolvency, the defendant was not aware.
3. Determination
A. The instant case.