사해행위취소 등
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. The purchase and sale reservation entered into on June 20, 2012 between the Defendant and C is made.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and D for the agreed amount claim under the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kadan3470.
On March 19, 2010, the above court decided to recommend reconciliation that "C and D shall jointly and severally pay 32 million won to the Plaintiff, and 16 million won among them shall be paid up to May 31, 2010 until July 31, 2010, respectively, and the interest of the due date shall be lost, and the amount payable shall be paid in addition to 20% interest per annum from the date following the due date to the date of full payment." The above decision to recommend reconciliation was finalized at that time.
B. On June 20, 2012, C entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer against the Defendant on June 21, 2012.
C. The defendant is the husband of E, who is a father of C, and the husband of C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts found as above, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the decision of recommending settlement as above against C was incurred before June 20, 2012, which was the date of the instant transaction promise, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation may become the preserved claim.
B. Fraudulent act and intent of fraud, which are subject to the right of revocation of creditor’s property, refers to a debtor’s property juristic act that causes a decrease in the debtor’s whole property, thereby undermining creditor’s property. In order for the debtor’s property disposal act to become a fraudulent act, such act causes a decrease in the debtor’s whole property and causes or deepens the shortage of joint security (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da20732, Nov. 25, 2016). As such, the debtor does not necessarily have to have to be in excess of his/her obligation at the time of the act of property disposal, and the debtor is in excess of his