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 December 20, 1992, the Plaintiff and C had the legal couple who reported marriage, and had E and F in their own sense.
From October 1, 2008, the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court 2008Ddan8239) to October 1, 2008, the monthly payment of KRW 600,000 each month from December 1, 2008 to February 11, 2013, and KRW 300,000 each month from February 12, 2013 to June 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s child support for the instant principal (E and F) was established. The Defendant, when the instant principal enters a university, was under conciliation to the effect that the Defendant is fully responsible for the school expenses of the instant principal.
B. On March 9, 2009, the registration of provisional disposition was revoked on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of 1/2 of the instant land (U.S. District Court 2008 business group417) and completed the registration thereof.
C. C entered into a donation contract with the Defendant, who is the mother on September 29, 2009, on the instant land (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land to the Defendant on September 30, 2009 due to the said donation contract.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 5, and 7 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that C bears the child support obligation against the plaintiff, and the donation of the land in this case to the defendant to the defendant is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, which is the creditor, and sought its revocation and restitution.
It is insufficient to acknowledge that C was in excess of its obligation at the time of entering into the gift contract of this case only with the statement 1 to 3 of evidence 10, and the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to the President of the Korea Credit Information Institute. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 9, at the time of entering into the gift contract of this case, C is only recognized that it owned No. 1123 of Suwon-gu G 1123 with the land of this case.
3...